Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Clipsfan View Post
    Without trying to get into the overall talent levels of '99 vs. '07, I do think that the talent level on Duke that year was phenomenal. I haven't double checked, but I think that our margin of victory was 26 points/game. That's unreal, and a sign that we just ran over everyone. Half time scores often had a larger margin because the team would back off from the beating they were giving people (I think scores were as ugly as 60-18 at halftime against the lesser competition). It was a lot of fun rooting for the team and seeing them play in person.

    Given the way we destroyed our competition, the conversations we had at the time didn't center around which other NCAA teams could give us a hard time, but rather whether Duke '99 could beat the Clippers. Ironically, they now ARE the Clippers. Do you really think that there is a single team in the NCAA this year who belongs in any conversation about beating any of the pro teams? It didn't feel wrong to compare Duke '99 to the worst pro team.
    It was ridiculous at the time to compare Duke 99 to pro teams. The hype around that team (Vitale contributed much of it) may have made it seem more reasonable but it was not. Every time we played an Elite 8 team from that season (4 times total), we either lost or played a close game.
    Last edited by Troublemaker; 03-13-2007 at 04:42 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    It was ridiculous at the time to compare Duke 99 to pro teams. The hype around that team (Vitale contributed much of it) may have made it seem more reasonable but it was not. Every time we played an Elite 8 team from that season (4 times total), we either lost or played a close game.
    I think that you may want to think back to how bad the Clippers were at the time, as well. Also, most comparisons were made during the actual season, before we lost that final game to UConn. At that point, the body of evidence was a close loss to Cinci which most of us thought was a fluke (Melvin Levett had the game of his life) a close victory over Mich St. and convincing victories over #3 Kentucky (11 points), #4 MD (18 points), UNC multiple times (12, 20 and 23 points). I know that fans may go overboard at times, but we were winning many games by 30 or 40. Given that the Clips were awful at the time, many of us would have enjoyed seeing that matchup. Call it ridiculous, it is definitely a fan's perogative.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Just to add a little more color to exactly HOW bad the Clippers were that year: it was the strike shortened season, and they went 9-41. Yes, they won only 18% of their games.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Clipsfan View Post
    I think that you may want to think back to how bad the Clippers were at the time, as well. Also, most comparisons were made during the actual season, before we lost that final game to UConn. At that point, the body of evidence was a close loss to Cinci which most of us thought was a fluke (Melvin Levett had the game of his life) a close victory over Mich St. and convincing victories over #3 Kentucky (11 points), #4 MD (18 points), UNC multiple times (12, 20 and 23 points). I know that fans may go overboard at times, but we were winning many games by 30 or 40. Given that the Clips were awful at the time, many of us would have enjoyed seeing that matchup. Call it ridiculous, it is definitely a fan's perogative.
    Of course it's a fan's prerogative to daydream. I just wouldn't use the "we compared them to NBA teams, so they must've been awesome" argument. Most people would just point out that you shouldn't have made that comparison in the first place.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    That ACC was very weak, though. I mean, if St. John's could hang and MSU could hang (twice), I don't see why this OSU team couldn't hang. I'd say it's more like this OSU team would win 2 out of 10 or maybe 2 out of 15 from Duke 99.
    I beg to differ. What you saw in 1999 was simply the lack of parity that exists in college basketball today. Duke and Maryland being so good and going a combined 29-3 in the conference directly led to the lack of ACC bids that year. Carolina was very good too. Duke finished first in the RPI, Maryland 4th, and Carolina 9th. While Carolina got knocked out in the infamous Weber State first-round game (despite being a 3 seed!!!), Maryland foreshadowed their success to come by making it to the second weekend.

    As for the non-conference teams you mentioned, both UConn and MSU that year were significantly better than any team in the field this year. Remember, MSU wound up with only one loss in conference play, and a 33-5 record overall (with 2 of those five losses being to us). Mateen Cleaves and co. would, of course, go on to win the title the very next year.

    UConn was even better, and would go on to finish with the same number of losses we did that year (2), also winning their conference. Rip Hamilton would, of course, go on to be an NBA stud, as would Jason Richardson from MSU (I think he played that year, if I'm wrong, someone correct me). That's to say nothing of role players like Khalid El'Amein, Jake Voskuhl, and whatever that lock-down-D player I can't think of's name is...

    By the way, that St. Johns team wound up a 3 seed and went on to lose a very close game to a very good Ohio State game (who nearly beat UConn in the Final Four). They finished with 28 wins.

    Basically, I think it's no secret that even with some stud teams like NC 2005, parity and early entry has greatly changed the college basketball landscape. If nothing else, guys like OJ Mayo, Kevin Durant, and Greg Oden now attend schools such as USC, Texas, and Ohio State instead of Kentucky, Duke, and UNC.

    Still, that 1999 team sticks out as one of the best college basketball teams ever. They won by an average of 25 points a game, averaged 92 points a game, outrebounded their opponents by an average of 11 boards per game, averaged over 50% from the field, and 40% from three.

    Each of the top teams this year has lost or looked vulnerable against very mediocre teams (Ohio State vs Penn State is a great example). I just don't see any of them matching up well against the 99 Duke team.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Reisen View Post
    I beg to differ. What you saw in 1999 was simply the lack of parity that exists in college basketball today. Duke and Maryland being so good and going a combined 29-3 in the conference directly led to the lack of ACC bids that year. Carolina was very good too. Duke finished first in the RPI, Maryland 4th, and Carolina 9th. While Carolina got knocked out in the infamous Weber State first-round game (despite being a 3 seed!!!), Maryland foreshadowed their success to come by making it to the second weekend....Basically, I think it's no secret that even with some stud teams like NC 2005, parity and early entry has greatly changed the college basketball landscape. If nothing else, guys like OJ Mayo, Kevin Durant, and Greg Oden now attend schools such as USC, Texas, and Ohio State instead of Kentucky, Duke, and UNC.
    There wasn't any less parity back then. 99 was the season Gonzaga made the Elite 8, remember? I don't think it's persuasive to say that the ACC only sent 3 teams because those were 3 stud teams that destroyed the rest. Duke was studly, but as mentioned, UNC lost to Weber St and were a slow team. Maryland was talented but inconsistent and SJU handled them pretty easily in the Sweet 16. And the fact that Mayo/Durant/Oden attend college these days supports there being more talent these days than back in 99. By 99, Garnett, Kobe, Jermaine, T-Mac, Harrington, Rashard, and Korleone (hahaha) had all already made the jump to the NBA. Early entry started way before 99 and high-school-to-NBA was already in full swing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reisen View Post
    As for the non-conference teams you mentioned, both UConn and MSU that year were significantly better than any team in the field this year. Remember, MSU wound up with only one loss in conference play, and a 33-5 record overall (with 2 of those five losses being to us). Mateen Cleaves and co. would, of course, go on to win the title the very next year...UConn was even better, and would go on to finish with the same number of losses we did that year (2), also winning their conference. Rip Hamilton would, of course, go on to be an NBA stud, as would Jason Richardson from MSU (I think he played that year, if I'm wrong, someone correct me). That's to say nothing of role players like Khalid El'Amein, Jake Voskuhl, and whatever that lock-down-D player I can't think of's name is...
    UConn and MSU 99 may have been better (or maybe not) than this year's teams, but I don't know how you can say they're significantly better when you compare roster talent. You named a couple of NBA players on those rosters (and no, Richardson was not on MSU 99)... you don't think the 1 seeds this year are going to have a few NBA players on it? If anything, the NBA argument will work against you because I'm pretty sure UNC, OSU, Fla, and Kansas are loaded with NBA players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reisen View Post
    Still, that 1999 team sticks out as one of the best college basketball teams ever. They won by an average of 25 points a game, averaged 92 points a game, outrebounded their opponents by an average of 11 boards per game, averaged over 50% from the field, and 40% from three.
    It's fine to disagree. I don't think Duke 99 is an all-time great team. The core of the team was the sophomore class, and while they had a lot of blowouts, every time they stepped up in competition (elite 8 team), they played a close game. If they had stayed together two more years, they would've been an all-time great.

  7. #27
    Good post, Reisen. If there's one thing that annoys me about 1999, it's the way most fans (duke and otherwise) consistently underrate UConn.

    That was as great a Duke team as we will ever see, but it was also one damn good UConn team. Does Duke win a best-of-seven? Probably. But it's far from a given.

    The championship game was a huge disappointment, but to call the season a disappointment, or worse, an "underachievement" (as many do) is to ignore (1) the phenomenal job K did in motivating his guys to bring it night in and night out, when they knew they could probably get by with 70% effort, and (2) to show a serious lack of respect for UConn's season.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    It's fine to disagree. I don't think Duke 99 is an all-time great team. The core of the team was the sophomore class, and while they had a lot of blowouts, every time they stepped up in competition (elite 8 team), they played a close game. If they had stayed together two more years, they would've been an all-time great.
    Troublemaker - You've made it quite clear that you don't think that Duke '99 was an all-time great team, which just begs the question: What are your standards for an all-time great team, and which teams from the last 25 years have been all-time greats? I'm curious how they would differ from the Duke '99 team, which I do consider one of the all-time greats.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Clipsfan View Post
    Troublemaker - You've made it quite clear that you don't think that Duke '99 was an all-time great team, which just begs the question: What are your standards for an all-time great team, and which teams from the last 25 years have been all-time greats? I'm curious how they would differ from the Duke '99 team, which I do consider one of the all-time greats.
    I think most of college basketball's great teams came before early-entry became popular in the mid-90's. Some Wooden's UCLA teams were probably the best. But from the past 25 years? Among just Duke teams, I think 86 and 92 were better. Among just teams that didn't win the championship, the Drexler/Olajuwon Houston team in 83. Ewing's Hoyas in 85. The King/Blaylock/Grant OU team in 88. Anderson/Battle/Gill Illini in 89. LJ/Anthony/Augmon/Hunt UNLV in 91. Among teams that won a championship, Kentucky 96 jumps to mind immediately. UNLV 90. I don't know if every single one of these teams were "all time greats" (certainly I'd consider Duke 92 and UK 96 to be) but I think they were all better teams than Duke 99.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I think most of college basketball's great teams came before early-entry became popular in the mid-90's. Some Wooden's UCLA teams were probably the best. But from the past 25 years? Among just Duke teams, I think 86 and 92 were better. Among just teams that didn't win the championship, the Drexler/Olajuwon Houston team in 83. Ewing's Hoyas in 85. The King/Blaylock/Grant OU team in 88. Anderson/Battle/Gill Illini in 89. LJ/Anthony/Augmon/Hunt UNLV in 91. Among teams that won a championship, Kentucky 96 jumps to mind immediately. UNLV 90. I don't know if every single one of these teams were "all time greats" (certainly I'd consider Duke 92 and UK 96 to be) but I think they were all better teams than Duke 99.
    I guess I'm still confused as to what your definition of an all-time great team is (probably because you still haven't given your criteria). Just to compare the first team you mention, Duke '86 on the only criteria you've mentioned for Duke '99, that they didn't blow out EVERY SINGLE TEAM, let's see which close games the Duke '86 team had:

    Beat Lamar by 4
    Beat St. Johns by 1
    Beat Kansas by 6
    Beat MD by 6
    Lost to UNC
    Lost to GT
    Beat NC State by 2
    Beat Notre Dame by 1
    Beat UVA by 5
    Beat GT by 1
    Beat KU by 4
    Lost to Louisville

    Are you saying that they were a better team than '99 because they were more dominant? The above games would suggest otherwise, even if the schedule may have been tougher. Even the '92 team, one of your definite all-time greats, had a couple one point wins, several more close games and as many losses as the '99 team (2). In contrast, only 4 of the '99 team's victories were by less than 10 points. They won 33 games by double digits!

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I think most of college basketball's great teams came before early-entry became popular in the mid-90's. Some Wooden's UCLA teams were probably the best. But from the past 25 years? Among just Duke teams, I think 86 and 92 were better. Among just teams that didn't win the championship, the Drexler/Olajuwon Houston team in 83. Ewing's Hoyas in 85. The King/Blaylock/Grant OU team in 88. Anderson/Battle/Gill Illini in 89. LJ/Anthony/Augmon/Hunt UNLV in 91. Among teams that won a championship, Kentucky 96 jumps to mind immediately. UNLV 90. I don't know if every single one of these teams were "all time greats" (certainly I'd consider Duke 92 and UK 96 to be) but I think they were all better teams than Duke 99.
    Just to be clear, you are aware that the 1999 Duke team produced 4 of the first 14 picks of the very next NBA draft, right? The talent on that club was beyond ridiculous.

    Compare them to the 1989 Illini?!?!? Are you serious? They lost 5 games. There isn't a single player on that team who was in the ballpark of Elton Brand or Corey Maggette in terms of basketball talent. Heck, it was early in his career but Kendall Gill and Nick Anderson are the only players on that team who are even as good a ballplayer as Shane Battier.

    The 1988 Sooners?!?? Again,a team with not nearly the NBA talent of the 1999 Blue Devils. You may be getting Harvey Grant confused with his better brother Horace. Stacey King was more of a bust as a pro than a standout. Mookie Blaylock had a good NBA career, but again there is no one on that team even in the ballpark of Elton Brand and that team did not produce anywhere close to the same kind of draft picks that the 1999 Blue Devils did.

    The other teams you cite are, to me, not entirely outclassed by the 1999 Devils. They all are teams I would consider to be among the greats in the game's history. There is a list of the best teams to never win a title and the 1986 Blue Devils, 1983 Cougars, 1985 Hoyas, and 1999 Blue Devils are near the top of that list in my mind.

    I think you may be forgetting just how good that 1999 team was. For some perspective, it wasnot just their absurd, unheard of margin of victory that made them so great. Lets leave the near-30 point margin of victory thing out for a moment. Thier RPI, a measure which completely disregards margin of victory, was #1 in the land by a huuuuge margin. According to the RPI they played the nation's 3rd toughest schedule that year. The only teams to play tougher schedules were UNC and Florida State, two teams that had the great RPI bonus of getting to play the Duke monster 2 or 3 times-- a SOS advantage that Duke could not get that year

    The 1999 Blue Devils posted an RPI of .6994 according to http://kenpom.com/rpi.php?y=1999 . Almost every year, an RPI of .6700 is good enough to be best in the land. Duke was 300 points ahead of that!!! The difference between Duke and the 2nd best team in the land that year (Michigan State, who Duke beat twice) was like the difference in Michigan State and the #7 team, the 24-9 UNC Tarheels who meekly went out in the first round of the tourney.

    I know you have been around here a while my Troublemaking friend but I think you have lost perspective on the 1999 team. A lot of Duke fans harbor some inner distaste for that club because of the "three Amigo$" and allegations of partying prior to the national championship game. I do not blame those folks. It hurts to lose when you think your team is not giving its all. But, don't let that cloud your judgement. That 1999 Duke team was stunning to watch and the vast majority of its games were over by halftime. The fact that UConn had the stones to believe they could win was a big part of why UConn was able to win. Most teams knew, as soon as they stepped on the floor that they did not have a chance against the 1999 Duke juggernaught.

    -Jason "I don't think we'll see an ACC team that dominates the conference like that for a very long time-- if ever" Evans

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY

    Duke v Clippers

    Brand
    Battier
    Maggette
    Langdon
    Avery

    Burgess
    Carrawell
    Domzalski
    James

    Was an adult version of the 1999 team capable of hanging with the 1999 Clippers? Hard to know for sure, but I'd guess that the first three guys on the roster would have been significantly better than their Clipper counterparts. Avery woulda/coulda been an NBA contender and certainly had NBA athleticism, and, since they would have had to collapse inside, Langdon could have spotted up for his threes. The four guys off the bench might not have been able to keep up with whoever the Clippers had on their bench, but they certainly wouldn't have been outmuscled.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    Brand
    Battier
    Maggette
    Langdon
    Avery

    Burgess
    Carrawell
    Domzalski
    James

    Was an adult version of the 1999 team capable of hanging with the 1999 Clippers? Hard to know for sure, but I'd guess that the first three guys on the roster would have been significantly better than their Clipper counterparts. Avery woulda/coulda been an NBA contender and certainly had NBA athleticism, and, since they would have had to collapse inside, Langdon could have spotted up for his threes. The four guys off the bench might not have been able to keep up with whoever the Clippers had on their bench, but they certainly wouldn't have been outmuscled.
    I recall some folks talking in 1999 about our team versus the 1999 Clips. It is laughable to compare them unless you do the "adult" thing and say that our players get to play the Clips when our guys are 3-5 years older.

    Even then, it is probably no contest. Yes, our top few guys were better than the top players on the Clips, but the dropoff for us is HUGE after that while the Clippers are bringing collegeiate All-Americans and players of the year in their conference off the bench. Here is the 1999 Clips roster:

    Mo Taylor
    Lamond Murray
    Eric Piatkowski
    Tyrone Nesby
    Michael Olowokandi
    Rodney Rodgers
    Lorenzen Wright
    Darrick Martin
    Sherman Douglas
    Troy Hudson
    Charles Smith
    Pooh Richardson
    Brian Skinner
    James Robinson

    Look at what some of those guys did in college and shudder. William Avery, our 4th best player, would have killed to have the NBA career of Darrick Martin or certainly The Shermanator. Rodney Rogers was a mega-stud in the ACC in his day. Aside from Battier, Brand, and Maggette there may not have been a single player on 1999 Duke who would have gotten playing time on the 1999 Clippers.

    Now, it is worth noting that Duke's 3 best players in 1999 would have all been better than anyone on that 1999 Clips team. But the margin of their lead gets crushed when you realize what the 4-12 players on the Clips would have done to the rest of the Duke team. Maybe, if we had a ton of timeouts and Brand, Battier, and Maggette could rest a lot we could have hung-- but I think the moment we went to our bench, we would have been hung out to dry.

    Such is the nature of being in the NBA versus college. Its like saying Oak Hill could hang with, for example, Wake Forest this year. Sure, the top 2 or 3 players on Oak Hill might have a chance but then they'd get crushed.

    -Jason "did I just praise 1999 Duke and dis them in the same thread?" Evans

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Clipsfan View Post
    I guess I'm still confused as to what your definition of an all-time great team is (probably because you still haven't given your criteria).
    My criteria is just talent + experience. Talent is subjective (and I'll get back to it in a reply to Jason) but experience isn't. The main reason I don't consider Duke 99 to be an all-time great team is because they were built around the sophomore class. How many all-time great college basketball teams were built around sophomores? If you can name such a team, then those sophomores probably went by "Alcindor" or "Walton." The thing is, before the era of early-entry that started in earnest in 1993, everybody stayed until they were a junior or senior. Therefore, great college basketball teams were built around talented seniors and juniors because, in general, talented upperclassmen are better than talented sophomores and talented freshmen. Think about how much Shel, JJ, and Shane improved from their sophomore years to their senior years. Brand, Avery, and Maggette would have made similar improvements had they stayed a couple more seasons. Before the era of early-entry, college basketball was ruled by teams that had their versions of Brand, Avery, and Maggette as juniors and seniors, and that's why Duke 99 does not measure up with them.

    They were too young, and they were playing in a diluted field (again, due to early entry) and yet they couldn't separate themselves from UConn/MSU/SJU, the Elite 8 or better teams that they played from that year. That's 4 chances and 4 close games or losses. 4 out of 4. Now, Duke 92 had their close games, but they also laid the smack down in the championship game against the Fab 5 (again, talented veterans beat down talented youth), they won back-to-back championships, and they played before early entry became prevalent. Duke 86 had close games but you can't really compare scores between a team that's just emerging from the pre-shotclock era and didn't play with a 3-pt line to a team firmly in the shotclock/3-pt era, and Duke 86 also played before the early-entry era. If Duke 86 was conditioned to play in the shotclock/3-pt era and played in the diluted field of 1999, they would've blown people out as well. Take any of the teams I mentioned, transfer them to 1999 while conditioned under 1999 rules, and lots of blowouts would ensue. The thing is, they would've separated themselves from UConn/MSU/SJU as well. And if you go back beyond 25 years, forget about it. I didn't get the pleasure to see Kareem, Walton, and David Thompson as upperclassmen leading championship teams, but I doubt any of those teams would've had much trouble with UConn/MSU/SJU of 1999. THOSE are all-time great teams. Duke 99 was a young team blowing out a diluted field but couldn't separate from the other great teams from that year. In fact, UConn actually had a better margin of victory in common games and, of course, they beat us.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    MKE
    ok but what about the coaching battle? coach k vs. chris ford? gotta give us an edge there.

  16. #36
    I don't think even the OSU fans think they are such a prohibitive favorite given their trail of single-digit victories this year. It will be almost as disappointing to OSU fans if they lose and Oden is one and done, because they will be far less likely to compete for a 1 seed in the near future.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Just to be clear, you are aware that the 1999 Duke team produced 4 of the first 14 picks of the very next NBA draft, right?
    Right, but as you already mentioned, who remains in the league? Brand (borderline All-Star every year), Battier (great role player, leader), and Maggette (erratic scorer). 3 guys -- no doubt, that still means Duke 99 was extremely talented, BUT there have been teams with 3 NBA'ers on it before. I mean, nobody is calling Michigan 92 an all-time great team, yet Webber/Howard/Rose have had similar careers and were similarly young in 92. Before it's all said and done, Felton/May/Marvin should be similar as well, and they were more experienced than Duke 99 when they won the championship, and nobody mentions them as all-time great. So there's got to be more to it than just counting up NBA guys.

    A lot of it is subjective, of course, but I honestly can't see how Duke 99 would've won more than 1 out of 5 against Duke 92, a team I consider an all-time great. Avery and Langdon would not have been able to guard Hurley and THill. No way - their defense was 99's major weakness. Cwell and Battier vs Davis and GHill? Similar roles at that point in their respective careers, but I gotta take the overall athleticism of the 92 guys. And whatever Brand got on Laettner in the post, Laettner would've taken back and more on the other end with his versatile scoring. I see complete domination by 92, to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Compare them to the 1989 Illini?!?!? Are you serious? They lost 5 games. There isn't a single player on that team who was in the ballpark of Elton Brand or Corey Maggette in terms of basketball talent. Heck, it was early in his career but Kendall Gill and Nick Anderson are the only players on that team who are even as good a ballplayer as Shane Battier.
    Gill and Anderson had similar careers to Battier and Maggette. Kenny Battle, Marcus Liberty, and Steve Bardo had their cup of tea similar to Avery and Langdon. It's true that they didn't have a talent like Brand, but that's where experience makes up the difference. I mean, Maggette was talented but he was so erratic as a freshman. The Illini had Sr Battle, Sr Lowell Hamilton, Jr Gill, Jr Anderson, Jr Bardo, and So Liberty. That team was extremely experienced and could score on anyone. I'll take the experience. BTW, the Illini may have had 5 losses, but that's 5 against 80's competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The 1988 Sooners?!?? Again,a team with not nearly the NBA talent of the 1999 Blue Devils. You may be getting Harvey Grant confused with his better brother Horace. Stacey King was more of a bust as a pro than a standout. Mookie Blaylock had a good NBA career, but again there is no one on that team even in the ballpark of Elton Brand and that team did not produce anywhere close to the same kind of draft picks that the 1999 Blue Devils did.
    It's really the same deal here. 3 long NBA careers vs 3 long NBA careers. Brand was the best out of everyone (no confusion between brothers here), but OU had the experience edge. Sr Grant, Sr Sieger, Sr Ricky Grace, Jr Blaylock, Jr King. Again, I'll take the experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The other teams you cite are, to me, not entirely outclassed by the 1999 Devils. They all are teams I would consider to be among the greats in the game's history. There is a list of the best teams to never win a title and the 1986 Blue Devils, 1983 Cougars, 1985 Hoyas, and 1999 Blue Devils are near the top of that list in my mind.
    See, I think they outclass 99. Akeem and Drexler are just a step up in class. Hall-of-famers. NBA top 50. Same with Ewing, who led such an experienced team. Duke 86 was ridiculously experienced as well even if they didn't have an NBA top 50 guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I know you have been around here a while my Troublemaking friend but I think you have lost perspective on the 1999 team. A lot of Duke fans harbor some inner distaste for that club because of the "three Amigo$" and allegations of partying prior to the national championship game. I do not blame those folks. It hurts to lose when you think your team is not giving its all. But, don't let that cloud your judgement. That 1999 Duke team was stunning to watch and the vast majority of its games were over by halftime. The fact that UConn had the stones to believe they could win was a big part of why UConn was able to win. Most teams knew, as soon as they stepped on the floor that they did not have a chance against the 1999 Duke juggernaught.
    See, I feel like I'm defending 99 in a way. Most people think our loss to UConn was a collossal choke/underachievement/upset. I think it was two even teams going head to head in a 1-game series that UConn happened to win. Believe me, I harbor no resentment for 99, and I thank you for recognizing that I've been around awhile, Jason. I guess the only way to know for sure how good 99 was is to have them play other all-time great teams, something I hope to see in the afterlife. For now, I remain convinced that Duke 99's youth and 4-out-of-4 close games against the elite 8 teams from diluted 1999 competition shows that they don't quite measure up. Although their record RPI and overall margin of victories are perhaps evidence that they do.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Summit County, Colo.
    People forget UConn '99 lost only two games all year by a combined four or five points, and in those games had starters missing due to injuries. IOW Uconn never lost a game while playing at full strength -- very similar to Duke '92, and something that can't be said about Duke '99 even if you throw out the title game.

    Not to "defend" UConn's '99 title or anything, but it wasn't dumb luck.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    you are posting a lot (almost 8/day), but I don't recall seeing your handle over the past decade. From my limited point of view, it is cool to disagree, but you might want to demonstrate some basketball knowledge before making fairly unsubstantiated statements (particularly if you are going to go up against one of the primo posters of all time, Mr Evans). Just being contrarian doesn't make you right.
    Troublemaker's been posting for quite some time, and doing quite a good job.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    What a great thread. Solid arguments on both sides. Thing is, this is the kind of argument that can't really be won out by either side, because the measurements are so subjective and hindsight usually blurs things a bit.

    Either way, I loved that '99 team, and I was crushed when they didn't win it all.

    And, to go back to the original post, no WAY is this year's Ohio State team comparable to the '99 team.

    That is all.

Similar Threads

  1. UNC-Asheville (Kenny George) vs Ohio State
    By Indoor66 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 07:59 PM
  2. Ohio State-Louisiana State
    By throatybeard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 04:40 PM
  3. Ohio State loses to Division II team
    By lavell12 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 06:46 PM
  4. The Ohio State University gets old Chancellor back
    By DevilAlumna in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 10:20 AM
  5. Ohio State Recruiting
    By houstondukie in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-08-2007, 07:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •