(03-12-2014 05:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 04:14 PM)Maize Wrote:  .doubtful that would've happen if UConn or any other school left...

Not true. Say the ACC took UConn instead of Syracuse for whatever reason. Louisville and West Virginia still compete for the open spot in the Big 12 in 2011. It would be Syracuse instead of UConn trying like mad to get a P5 invite. Or possibly Louisville is stuck, if the Big Ten takes Rutgers and Maryland and the ACC backfills with Syracuse.

If it's Syracuse instead of UConn as the last (non-CUSA) Big East football school left outside the P5, do we (the C-7) still split?

Hmm. Syracuse-Georgetown and St Johns-Syracuse have more resonance than any UConn-C7 rivalry. (Sorry, UConn-Providence). On the other hand, I doubt that Marquette gives a rip.

I think we do split--all the reasons we split are still there. We'd be a little more emotional about Syracuse than about UConn, but not much.

no offense to uconn but SU is in a different class and they would of gotten an invite somewhere. there is no way a school that is 15 all time wins in football and the basketball tradition that we have gets left out.

(03-12-2014 07:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 05:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 04:14 PM)Maize Wrote:  .doubtful that would've happen if UConn or any other school left...

Not true. Say the ACC took UConn instead of Syracuse for whatever reason. Louisville and West Virginia still compete for the open spot in the Big 12 in 2011. It would be Syracuse instead of UConn trying like mad to get a P5 invite. Or possibly Louisville is stuck, if the Big Ten takes Rutgers and Maryland and the ACC backfills with Syracuse.

If it's Syracuse instead of UConn as the last (non-CUSA) Big East football school left outside the P5, do we (the C-7) still split?

Hmm. Syracuse-Georgetown and St Johns-Syracuse have more resonance than any UConn-C7 rivalry. (Sorry, UConn-Providence). On the other hand, I doubt that Marquette gives a rip.

I think we do split--all the reasons we split are still there. We'd be a little more emotional about Syracuse than about UConn, but not much.

no offense to uconn but SU is in a different class and they would of gotten an invite somewhere. there is no way a school that is 15 all time wins in football and the basketball tradition that we have gets left out.

(03-12-2014 03:46 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 12:04 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 10:57 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  What better competition did Syracuse face in 1987?

This shows how absolutely out of it you are. Go back and look at that 1987 Indiana team and compare it to 1999 Duke.

1999 Duke had future NBA players all over the court. Maggette, Brand, Avery, Battier, etc.

Indiana had 1 guy that played 4 or 5 seasons and scored 3 or 4 pts a game.

Do you realize how preposterous this sounds?

Competition is about the whole tournament, not just one game. UConn benefited from upsets throughout that tournament, including facing Cinderella 10 seed Gonzaga in their regional final.

Cuse had to beat a 32-3 UNC team in their regional final, a team that featured 4 guys who would play 10+ years in the NBA.

Yes, UConn beat a very good Duke team in the finals, a great victory, no question. Cuse lost at the buzzer to an Indiana team during a time when Bobby Knight could beat anyone on a given night, just ask #1 UNLV that year or Michael Jordan in 1984.

But Cuse 1987 was clearly better than UConn 1999.

Basicallly, when someone responds to your points with facts (you argued Cuse lost to tougher competition originally), you then change your argument entirely to something equally bogus.

Actually, this whole thread has been about me winnowing down your outlandish pro-UConn claims with facts, such that you are now left with the trivial tangent comparing who UConn 1999 and Syracuse 1987 played in the their NCAA title games.

And I have not a changed my argument. By "tougher competition", I meant the entirety of the season and the tournament, not just the final game. Tougher competition takes it toll on a team throughout the season.

But to your tiny, nitzy remaining point: Yes, Indiana 1987 was not as talented as Duke 1999. There's no question of that. But Indiana had Knight at his peak, who could beat anyone with anything back then. That explains a buzzer-beater loss by a team that was better than 1999 UConn.

Here you go again. Every time a new clarification. Now I'm supposed to be comparing schedules between 1999 and 1987. Easy to do off the top of my head. BE + Syracuse plays no one OOC outside NY State, whereas UConn plays at least 3 but usually 4 ranked teams OOC.

Sure enough, I'm right: UConn played #5 Michigan St., #13 Washington (the MacCullough team), and Calipari's #20 UMass (which was top 10 most of the year). Miami, St john's, Syracuse, Pitt and Villanova were all ranked in top 25 during the year (although Pitt was early and then fell apart).

As for Cuse in 1987, they too went to the NCAAs with 4 other BE tourney teams, and only those 4 were ranked in the NCAA Top 25 during the year. Cuse didn't play a single ranked team OOC all year. Not one! Cuse also lost 7 games. UConn lost 1. UConn had a tougher OOC and only lost 1 game. Going into the tournament Syracuse was ranked #10 in the poll. UConn started at #3 in the poll, went up to #2, and stayed at #2 and #1 all season long.

To even compare the two teams is absolutely laughable. UConn had a tougher schedule, lost a lot fewer games, played tougher teams in the Final 4 (and that tourney you tout for Syracuse had 1 tough game, North Carolina, but otherwise it was filled with mediocrities such as North Kentucky, Georgia Southern and a low unranked Florida team, not to mention Providence a 6 seed and Indiana).



http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...1999-uconn

There is no new clarification. As for overall SOS, Syracuse 87 was ranked 18, UConn 27 (link below). But you miss the broader point: As Boeheim, K, and others have said, the level of talent across the board was better in the 80s, so played a #20 team in 1987 was playing a better team than playing the #20 team in 1999.

As for that link best-champions link, WTF? That is the most HILARIOUS list of all-time best champion teams ever! He has 2012 Kentucky, with a bunch of freshman, at #7? He has 2008 Kansas, with almost nobody, at #3? It is loaded with mediocre teams of the past 20 years that could not hold a candle to the great champions before that, before college basketball got watered down.

Hell, any of the 1960s UCLA Jabbar teams would have killed any of those teams by 20 points. Thanks for the MASSIVE laughs. Simply Awesome!

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../1987.html

Nova...LOL

(03-13-2014 01:34 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Nova...LOL

That should get this thread back on track.

(03-13-2014 01:38 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 01:34 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Nova...LOL

That should get this thread back on track.

Is anyone surprised....

(03-13-2014 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:46 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 12:04 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Competition is about the whole tournament, not just one game. UConn benefited from upsets throughout that tournament, including facing Cinderella 10 seed Gonzaga in their regional final.

Cuse had to beat a 32-3 UNC team in their regional final, a team that featured 4 guys who would play 10+ years in the NBA.

Yes, UConn beat a very good Duke team in the finals, a great victory, no question. Cuse lost at the buzzer to an Indiana team during a time when Bobby Knight could beat anyone on a given night, just ask #1 UNLV that year or Michael Jordan in 1984.

But Cuse 1987 was clearly better than UConn 1999.

Basicallly, when someone responds to your points with facts (you argued Cuse lost to tougher competition originally), you then change your argument entirely to something equally bogus.

Actually, this whole thread has been about me winnowing down your outlandish pro-UConn claims with facts, such that you are now left with the trivial tangent comparing who UConn 1999 and Syracuse 1987 played in the their NCAA title games.

And I have not a changed my argument. By "tougher competition", I meant the entirety of the season and the tournament, not just the final game. Tougher competition takes it toll on a team throughout the season.

But to your tiny, nitzy remaining point: Yes, Indiana 1987 was not as talented as Duke 1999. There's no question of that. But Indiana had Knight at his peak, who could beat anyone with anything back then. That explains a buzzer-beater loss by a team that was better than 1999 UConn.

Here you go again. Every time a new clarification. Now I'm supposed to be comparing schedules between 1999 and 1987. Easy to do off the top of my head. BE + Syracuse plays no one OOC outside NY State, whereas UConn plays at least 3 but usually 4 ranked teams OOC.

Sure enough, I'm right: UConn played #5 Michigan St., #13 Washington (the MacCullough team), and Calipari's #20 UMass (which was top 10 most of the year). Miami, St john's, Syracuse, Pitt and Villanova were all ranked in top 25 during the year (although Pitt was early and then fell apart).

As for Cuse in 1987, they too went to the NCAAs with 4 other BE tourney teams, and only those 4 were ranked in the NCAA Top 25 during the year. Cuse didn't play a single ranked team OOC all year. Not one! Cuse also lost 7 games. UConn lost 1. UConn had a tougher OOC and only lost 1 game. Going into the tournament Syracuse was ranked #10 in the poll. UConn started at #3 in the poll, went up to #2, and stayed at #2 and #1 all season long.

To even compare the two teams is absolutely laughable. UConn had a tougher schedule, lost a lot fewer games, played tougher teams in the Final 4 (and that tourney you tout for Syracuse had 1 tough game, North Carolina, but otherwise it was filled with mediocrities such as North Kentucky, Georgia Southern and a low unranked Florida team, not to mention Providence a 6 seed and Indiana).



http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...1999-uconn

There is no new clarification. As for overall SOS, Syracuse 87 was ranked 18, UConn 27 (link below). But you miss the broader point: As Boeheim, K, and others have said, the level of talent across the board was better in the 80s, so played a #20 team in 1987 was playing a better team than playing the #20 team in 1999.

As for that link best-champions link, WTF? That is the most HILARIOUS list of all-time best champion teams ever! He has 2012 Kentucky, with a bunch of freshman, at #7? He has 2008 Kansas, with almost nobody, at #3? It is loaded with mediocre teams of the past 20 years that could not hold a candle to the great champions before that, before college basketball got watered down.

Hell, any of the 1960s UCLA Jabbar teams would have killed any of those teams by 20 points. Thanks for the MASSIVE laughs. Simply Awesome!

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../1987.html

The talent level of the teams UConn played was not worse across the board. As I've shown you, UConn was loaded with NBA players. It played teams loaded with NBA players. The Washington, Michigan St. UCLA teams on the OOC schedule were loaded with NBA players.

Are you actually arguing that the level of play in the NBA used t better? Because I assure you the players today are much much better than they used to be.

I will say this: I was jealous seeing how packed MSG looked for the game: us holdovers (and exitees) we will miss that.

(03-13-2014 05:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I will say this: I was jealous seeing how packed MSG looked for the game: us holdovers (and exitees) we will miss that.

The Garden hides empty seats well. First, they fill the portable seats along the floor to make it look better on television. Second, the seating bowls are dark and the playing surface lit like the bright lights of Broadway... because of that it was hard to notice the nearly 7,000 empty seats last night and 4,000 in the early session today.

The locals and the schools other fans stay for more games than there own, unlike in Memphis where they had 10,000+ no shows yesterday and the early session today. Then all of that is further highlighted by the layout and bright lights that make every empty seat stand out throughout the building and the place just looked and sounded like a morgue.

(03-13-2014 05:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I will say this: I was jealous seeing how packed MSG looked for the game: us holdovers (and exitees) we will miss that.

Eh, give it a couple years and the ACC will be holding their tourney up at MSG... It's only a matter of time.

(03-13-2014 04:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:46 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 12:04 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Basicallly, when someone responds to your points with facts (you argued Cuse lost to tougher competition originally), you then change your argument entirely to something equally bogus.

Actually, this whole thread has been about me winnowing down your outlandish pro-UConn claims with facts, such that you are now left with the trivial tangent comparing who UConn 1999 and Syracuse 1987 played in the their NCAA title games.

And I have not a changed my argument. By "tougher competition", I meant the entirety of the season and the tournament, not just the final game. Tougher competition takes it toll on a team throughout the season.

But to your tiny, nitzy remaining point: Yes, Indiana 1987 was not as talented as Duke 1999. There's no question of that. But Indiana had Knight at his peak, who could beat anyone with anything back then. That explains a buzzer-beater loss by a team that was better than 1999 UConn.

Here you go again. Every time a new clarification. Now I'm supposed to be comparing schedules between 1999 and 1987. Easy to do off the top of my head. BE + Syracuse plays no one OOC outside NY State, whereas UConn plays at least 3 but usually 4 ranked teams OOC.

Sure enough, I'm right: UConn played #5 Michigan St., #13 Washington (the MacCullough team), and Calipari's #20 UMass (which was top 10 most of the year). Miami, St john's, Syracuse, Pitt and Villanova were all ranked in top 25 during the year (although Pitt was early and then fell apart).

As for Cuse in 1987, they too went to the NCAAs with 4 other BE tourney teams, and only those 4 were ranked in the NCAA Top 25 during the year. Cuse didn't play a single ranked team OOC all year. Not one! Cuse also lost 7 games. UConn lost 1. UConn had a tougher OOC and only lost 1 game. Going into the tournament Syracuse was ranked #10 in the poll. UConn started at #3 in the poll, went up to #2, and stayed at #2 and #1 all season long.

To even compare the two teams is absolutely laughable. UConn had a tougher schedule, lost a lot fewer games, played tougher teams in the Final 4 (and that tourney you tout for Syracuse had 1 tough game, North Carolina, but otherwise it was filled with mediocrities such as North Kentucky, Georgia Southern and a low unranked Florida team, not to mention Providence a 6 seed and Indiana).



http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...1999-uconn

There is no new clarification. As for overall SOS, Syracuse 87 was ranked 18, UConn 27 (link below). But you miss the broader point: As Boeheim, K, and others have said, the level of talent across the board was better in the 80s, so played a #20 team in 1987 was playing a better team than playing the #20 team in 1999.

As for that link best-champions link, WTF? That is the most HILARIOUS list of all-time best champion teams ever! He has 2012 Kentucky, with a bunch of freshman, at #7? He has 2008 Kansas, with almost nobody, at #3? It is loaded with mediocre teams of the past 20 years that could not hold a candle to the great champions before that, before college basketball got watered down.

Hell, any of the 1960s UCLA Jabbar teams would have killed any of those teams by 20 points. Thanks for the MASSIVE laughs. Simply Awesome!

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../1987.html

The talent level of the teams UConn played was not worse across the board. As I've shown you, UConn was loaded with NBA players. It played teams loaded with NBA players. The Washington, Michigan St. UCLA teams on the OOC schedule were loaded with NBA players.

Dude, I showed that Syracuse played a tougher schedule, and do you doubt that coaches like Boeheim, K, and Williams know what they are talking about when they say the quality of college basketball has been significantly lower these past 15 or so years compared to the 1980s? I don't see why you would.

1999 UConn had Rip Hamilton. That's a lot less than what 1987 Syracuse had.

(03-14-2014 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 04:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:46 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, this whole thread has been about me winnowing down your outlandish pro-UConn claims with facts, such that you are now left with the trivial tangent comparing who UConn 1999 and Syracuse 1987 played in the their NCAA title games.

And I have not a changed my argument. By "tougher competition", I meant the entirety of the season and the tournament, not just the final game. Tougher competition takes it toll on a team throughout the season.

But to your tiny, nitzy remaining point: Yes, Indiana 1987 was not as talented as Duke 1999. There's no question of that. But Indiana had Knight at his peak, who could beat anyone with anything back then. That explains a buzzer-beater loss by a team that was better than 1999 UConn.

Here you go again. Every time a new clarification. Now I'm supposed to be comparing schedules between 1999 and 1987. Easy to do off the top of my head. BE + Syracuse plays no one OOC outside NY State, whereas UConn plays at least 3 but usually 4 ranked teams OOC.

Sure enough, I'm right: UConn played #5 Michigan St., #13 Washington (the MacCullough team), and Calipari's #20 UMass (which was top 10 most of the year). Miami, St john's, Syracuse, Pitt and Villanova were all ranked in top 25 during the year (although Pitt was early and then fell apart).

As for Cuse in 1987, they too went to the NCAAs with 4 other BE tourney teams, and only those 4 were ranked in the NCAA Top 25 during the year. Cuse didn't play a single ranked team OOC all year. Not one! Cuse also lost 7 games. UConn lost 1. UConn had a tougher OOC and only lost 1 game. Going into the tournament Syracuse was ranked #10 in the poll. UConn started at #3 in the poll, went up to #2, and stayed at #2 and #1 all season long.

To even compare the two teams is absolutely laughable. UConn had a tougher schedule, lost a lot fewer games, played tougher teams in the Final 4 (and that tourney you tout for Syracuse had 1 tough game, North Carolina, but otherwise it was filled with mediocrities such as North Kentucky, Georgia Southern and a low unranked Florida team, not to mention Providence a 6 seed and Indiana).



http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...1999-uconn

There is no new clarification. As for overall SOS, Syracuse 87 was ranked 18, UConn 27 (link below). But you miss the broader point: As Boeheim, K, and others have said, the level of talent across the board was better in the 80s, so played a #20 team in 1987 was playing a better team than playing the #20 team in 1999.

As for that link best-champions link, WTF? That is the most HILARIOUS list of all-time best champion teams ever! He has 2012 Kentucky, with a bunch of freshman, at #7? He has 2008 Kansas, with almost nobody, at #3? It is loaded with mediocre teams of the past 20 years that could not hold a candle to the great champions before that, before college basketball got watered down.

Hell, any of the 1960s UCLA Jabbar teams would have killed any of those teams by 20 points. Thanks for the MASSIVE laughs. Simply Awesome!

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../1987.html

The talent level of the teams UConn played was not worse across the board. As I've shown you, UConn was loaded with NBA players. It played teams loaded with NBA players. The Washington, Michigan St. UCLA teams on the OOC schedule were loaded with NBA players.

Dude, I showed that Syracuse played a tougher schedule, and do you doubt that coaches like Boeheim, K, and Williams know what they are talking about when they say the quality of college basketball has been significantly lower these past 15 or so years compared to the 1980s? I don't see why you would.

1999 UConn had Rip Hamilton. That's a lot less than what 1987 Syracuse had.

How in the world did Syracuse play a tougher schedule with ZERO ranked OOC teams and fewer ranked BE teams?

Nonsense.

UConn lost one game all year.

Syracuse lost 7 games.

(03-14-2014 07:52 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 04:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 03:46 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Here you go again. Every time a new clarification. Now I'm supposed to be comparing schedules between 1999 and 1987. Easy to do off the top of my head. BE + Syracuse plays no one OOC outside NY State, whereas UConn plays at least 3 but usually 4 ranked teams OOC.

Sure enough, I'm right: UConn played #5 Michigan St., #13 Washington (the MacCullough team), and Calipari's #20 UMass (which was top 10 most of the year). Miami, St john's, Syracuse, Pitt and Villanova were all ranked in top 25 during the year (although Pitt was early and then fell apart).

As for Cuse in 1987, they too went to the NCAAs with 4 other BE tourney teams, and only those 4 were ranked in the NCAA Top 25 during the year. Cuse didn't play a single ranked team OOC all year. Not one! Cuse also lost 7 games. UConn lost 1. UConn had a tougher OOC and only lost 1 game. Going into the tournament Syracuse was ranked #10 in the poll. UConn started at #3 in the poll, went up to #2, and stayed at #2 and #1 all season long.

To even compare the two teams is absolutely laughable. UConn had a tougher schedule, lost a lot fewer games, played tougher teams in the Final 4 (and that tourney you tout for Syracuse had 1 tough game, North Carolina, but otherwise it was filled with mediocrities such as North Kentucky, Georgia Southern and a low unranked Florida team, not to mention Providence a 6 seed and Indiana).



http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...1999-uconn

There is no new clarification. As for overall SOS, Syracuse 87 was ranked 18, UConn 27 (link below). But you miss the broader point: As Boeheim, K, and others have said, the level of talent across the board was better in the 80s, so played a #20 team in 1987 was playing a better team than playing the #20 team in 1999.

As for that link best-champions link, WTF? That is the most HILARIOUS list of all-time best champion teams ever! He has 2012 Kentucky, with a bunch of freshman, at #7? He has 2008 Kansas, with almost nobody, at #3? It is loaded with mediocre teams of the past 20 years that could not hold a candle to the great champions before that, before college basketball got watered down.

Hell, any of the 1960s UCLA Jabbar teams would have killed any of those teams by 20 points. Thanks for the MASSIVE laughs. Simply Awesome!

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../1987.html

The talent level of the teams UConn played was not worse across the board. As I've shown you, UConn was loaded with NBA players. It played teams loaded with NBA players. The Washington, Michigan St. UCLA teams on the OOC schedule were loaded with NBA players.

Dude, I showed that Syracuse played a tougher schedule, and do you doubt that coaches like Boeheim, K, and Williams know what they are talking about when they say the quality of college basketball has been significantly lower these past 15 or so years compared to the 1980s? I don't see why you would.

1999 UConn had Rip Hamilton. That's a lot less than what 1987 Syracuse had.

How in the world did Syracuse play a tougher schedule with ZERO ranked OOC teams and fewer ranked BE teams?

Nonsense.

Your logic that relies, in part, on OOC teams is pretty silly. What matters is the overall schedule.

Syracuse lost more games and didn't win the national title because it played a tougher schedule, and because college basketball was simply more competitive in the 1980s because the caliber of player was higher.

Before the mid-90s, you could have great players and a great team and still never win a national title. Just ask e.g. Phi Slamma Jamma and the Fab 5, both of which were much more talented than any UConn national championship team.

(03-14-2014 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 07:52 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 04:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There is no new clarification. As for overall SOS, Syracuse 87 was ranked 18, UConn 27 (link below). But you miss the broader point: As Boeheim, K, and others have said, the level of talent across the board was better in the 80s, so played a #20 team in 1987 was playing a better team than playing the #20 team in 1999.

As for that link best-champions link, WTF? That is the most HILARIOUS list of all-time best champion teams ever! He has 2012 Kentucky, with a bunch of freshman, at #7? He has 2008 Kansas, with almost nobody, at #3? It is loaded with mediocre teams of the past 20 years that could not hold a candle to the great champions before that, before college basketball got watered down.

Hell, any of the 1960s UCLA Jabbar teams would have killed any of those teams by 20 points. Thanks for the MASSIVE laughs. Simply Awesome!

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho.../1987.html

The talent level of the teams UConn played was not worse across the board. As I've shown you, UConn was loaded with NBA players. It played teams loaded with NBA players. The Washington, Michigan St. UCLA teams on the OOC schedule were loaded with NBA players.

Dude, I showed that Syracuse played a tougher schedule, and do you doubt that coaches like Boeheim, K, and Williams know what they are talking about when they say the quality of college basketball has been significantly lower these past 15 or so years compared to the 1980s? I don't see why you would.

1999 UConn had Rip Hamilton. That's a lot less than what 1987 Syracuse had.

How in the world did Syracuse play a tougher schedule with ZERO ranked OOC teams and fewer ranked BE teams?

Nonsense.

Your logic that relies, in part, on OOC teams is pretty silly. What matters is the overall schedule.

Syracuse lost more games and didn't win the national title because it played a tougher schedule, and because college basketball was simply more competitive in the 1980s because the caliber of player was higher.

Before the mid-90s, you could have great players and a great team and still never win a national title. Just ask e.g. Phi Slamma Jamma and the Fab 5, both of which were much more talented than any UConn national championship team.

Every post of yours is worse than the previous one.

While you reply on SOS (which gives credence to the winning records of low majors and other such distortions), I was looking at games against ranked teams, and UConn blew Syracuse away in that department. You're impressed by wins over Colgate (#1 in the Patriot League, hoooooooray!!!!!) while UConn is taking down Michigan St. and the like. Use your brain.

As for 1990s teams that didn't win with star-studded casts, we've been over this already. Duke 1999 didn't win it. Are you paying attention?

I love how you moved the goalposts again. We're to the mid-1990s now, just so you could include the Fab5. Hilarious. UConn was already dominating the BE by the mid 1990s. So now we're into the mid 1990s and you've left your point about the 1980s behind (and I know why, because Georgetown took an eon to make the Final 8 after the 1980s). Suddenly now you've crept up your timeline to account for Michigan.

1999 Duke, 1997 Kentucky, 2001 Arizona, 2008 Memphis, 2004 Duke.

All 5 of these teams were better than 1983 NC State, 85 Villanova, 86 Louisville, 86 Duke, 87 Indiana, 87 Syracuse, 89 Seton Hall.

Come on!!

(03-14-2014 11:17 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 07:52 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 04:53 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The talent level of the teams UConn played was not worse across the board. As I've shown you, UConn was loaded with NBA players. It played teams loaded with NBA players. The Washington, Michigan St. UCLA teams on the OOC schedule were loaded with NBA players.

Dude, I showed that Syracuse played a tougher schedule, and do you doubt that coaches like Boeheim, K, and Williams know what they are talking about when they say the quality of college basketball has been significantly lower these past 15 or so years compared to the 1980s? I don't see why you would.

1999 UConn had Rip Hamilton. That's a lot less than what 1987 Syracuse had.

How in the world did Syracuse play a tougher schedule with ZERO ranked OOC teams and fewer ranked BE teams?

Nonsense.

Your logic that relies, in part, on OOC teams is pretty silly. What matters is the overall schedule.

Syracuse lost more games and didn't win the national title because it played a tougher schedule, and because college basketball was simply more competitive in the 1980s because the caliber of player was higher.

Before the mid-90s, you could have great players and a great team and still never win a national title. Just ask e.g. Phi Slamma Jamma and the Fab 5, both of which were much more talented than any UConn national championship team.

Every post of yours is worse than the previous one.

While you reply on SOS (which gives credence to the winning records of low majors and other such distortions), I was looking at games against ranked teams, and UConn blew Syracuse away in that department. You're impressed by wins over Colgate (#1 in the Patriot League, hoooooooray!!!!!) while UConn is taking down Michigan St. and the like. Use your brain.

As for 1990s teams that didn't win with star-studded casts, we've been over this already. Duke 1999 didn't win it. Are you paying attention?

I love how you moved the goalposts again. We're to the mid-1990s now, just so you could include the Fab5. Hilarious. UConn was already dominating the BE by the mid 1990s. So now we're into the mid 1990s and you've left your point about the 1980s behind

WTF? When did I leave the 80s behind? Was Phi Slamma a "mid-90s" team? Are you on drugs?

Why do you keep replying when your points keep getting debunked?

UConn didn't win any titles until 1999. The Fab 5 were 1992 and 1993, early 90s, not "mid" 90s, and WAY before UConn won anything, and still within the period where the talent level was up, as has been documented by experts like coach K, Boeheim, and Roy Williams, top coaches who coached throughout the past 30 years and know what they are talking about.

Syracuse 1987 clearly had more talent than UConn 1999, there is no question about that. The reason they didn't win it was because winning was harder due to the better players, ask Phi Slamma and the Fab 5. You played a weaker 1999 schedule, and had an easy ride against soft competition in the tournament, then played a great game in the title game to shock a better Duke team, like NC State did to Phi Slamma. Kudos. But you were not as good as Syracuse was in 1987.

UConn became a dominant program later, when the talent wasn't nearly as good. That's the way it was.

This space reserved for yet another lightweight "upstater" reply:

(03-14-2014 02:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:17 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 07:52 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Dude, I showed that Syracuse played a tougher schedule, and do you doubt that coaches like Boeheim, K, and Williams know what they are talking about when they say the quality of college basketball has been significantly lower these past 15 or so years compared to the 1980s? I don't see why you would.

1999 UConn had Rip Hamilton. That's a lot less than what 1987 Syracuse had.

How in the world did Syracuse play a tougher schedule with ZERO ranked OOC teams and fewer ranked BE teams?

Nonsense.

Your logic that relies, in part, on OOC teams is pretty silly. What matters is the overall schedule.

Syracuse lost more games and didn't win the national title because it played a tougher schedule, and because college basketball was simply more competitive in the 1980s because the caliber of player was higher.

Before the mid-90s, you could have great players and a great team and still never win a national title. Just ask e.g. Phi Slamma Jamma and the Fab 5, both of which were much more talented than any UConn national championship team.

Every post of yours is worse than the previous one.

While you reply on SOS (which gives credence to the winning records of low majors and other such distortions), I was looking at games against ranked teams, and UConn blew Syracuse away in that department. You're impressed by wins over Colgate (#1 in the Patriot League, hoooooooray!!!!!) while UConn is taking down Michigan St. and the like. Use your brain.

As for 1990s teams that didn't win with star-studded casts, we've been over this already. Duke 1999 didn't win it. Are you paying attention?

I love how you moved the goalposts again. We're to the mid-1990s now, just so you could include the Fab5. Hilarious. UConn was already dominating the BE by the mid 1990s. So now we're into the mid 1990s and you've left your point about the 1980s behind

WTF? When did I leave the 80s behind? Was Phi Slamma a "mid-90s" team? Are you on drugs?

Why do you keep replying when your points keep getting debunked?

UConn didn't win any titles until 1999. The Fab 5 were 1992 and 1993, early 90s, not "mid" 90s, and WAY before UConn won anything, and still within the period where the talent level was up, as has been documented by experts like coach K, Boeheim, and Roy Williams, top coaches who coached throughout the past 30 years and know what they are talking about.

Syracuse 1987 clearly had more talent than UConn 1999, there is no question about that. The reason they didn't win it was because winning was harder due to the better players, ask Phi Slamma and the Fab 5. You played a weaker 1999 schedule, and had an easy ride against soft competition in the tournament, then played a great game in the title game to shock a better Duke team, like NC State did to Phi Slamma. Kudos. But you were not as good as Syracuse was in 1987.

UConn became a dominant program later, when the talent wasn't nearly as good. That's the way it was.

This space reserved for yet another lightweight "upstater" reply:

You wrote "Mid 90s."

That's what you wrote. Not me. Are you braindead?

You started touting the 1980s, and the next thing you know, you moved up the timeline to the "mid 1990s."

By the mid 1990s, UConn had won 4 BE regular season championships, going 16-2, 16-2, and 17-1 in the BE for 3 years in a row (now THAT is domination). During this period, by the way, UConn was winning championships over Georgetown teams that, apparently, according to you, were not that good. Even though one of those Georgetown teams had BOTH Dikembe Mutombe and Alonzo Mourning on them. Another of those so-called weak Georgetown teams featured Allen Iverson, Othella Harrington, Victor Page, Jahidi White, and Jerome Williams!

The 1999 UConn schedule was so much harder than Cuse's 1987. You're impressed with Colgate and the like. UConn played RANKED teams OOC, Cuse didn't. UConn played MORE ranked BE teams than Cuse did.

Can you address that? What does it mean that UConn played a lot of ranked teams while Syracuse played NONE OOC? Explain that? And explain why it's so impressive to you to have a good SOS full of teams with great winning records, even though they are low-majors, AND those games were at the Carrier Dome.

Is their any way to go all Jon Taffer on this thread, and SHUT IT DOWN?!?!?!

(03-14-2014 03:24 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 02:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:17 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 07:52 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  How in the world did Syracuse play a tougher schedule with ZERO ranked OOC teams and fewer ranked BE teams?

Nonsense.

Your logic that relies, in part, on OOC teams is pretty silly. What matters is the overall schedule.

Syracuse lost more games and didn't win the national title because it played a tougher schedule, and because college basketball was simply more competitive in the 1980s because the caliber of player was higher.

Before the mid-90s, you could have great players and a great team and still never win a national title. Just ask e.g. Phi Slamma Jamma and the Fab 5, both of which were much more talented than any UConn national championship team.

Every post of yours is worse than the previous one.

While you reply on SOS (which gives credence to the winning records of low majors and other such distortions), I was looking at games against ranked teams, and UConn blew Syracuse away in that department. You're impressed by wins over Colgate (#1 in the Patriot League, hoooooooray!!!!!) while UConn is taking down Michigan St. and the like. Use your brain.

As for 1990s teams that didn't win with star-studded casts, we've been over this already. Duke 1999 didn't win it. Are you paying attention?

I love how you moved the goalposts again. We're to the mid-1990s now, just so you could include the Fab5. Hilarious. UConn was already dominating the BE by the mid 1990s. So now we're into the mid 1990s and you've left your point about the 1980s behind

WTF? When did I leave the 80s behind? Was Phi Slamma a "mid-90s" team? Are you on drugs?

Why do you keep replying when your points keep getting debunked?

UConn didn't win any titles until 1999. The Fab 5 were 1992 and 1993, early 90s, not "mid" 90s, and WAY before UConn won anything, and still within the period where the talent level was up, as has been documented by experts like coach K, Boeheim, and Roy Williams, top coaches who coached throughout the past 30 years and know what they are talking about.

Syracuse 1987 clearly had more talent than UConn 1999, there is no question about that. The reason they didn't win it was because winning was harder due to the better players, ask Phi Slamma and the Fab 5. You played a weaker 1999 schedule, and had an easy ride against soft competition in the tournament, then played a great game in the title game to shock a better Duke team, like NC State did to Phi Slamma. Kudos. But you were not as good as Syracuse was in 1987.

UConn became a dominant program later, when the talent wasn't nearly as good. That's the way it was.

This space reserved for yet another lightweight "upstater" reply:

You wrote "Mid 90s."

That's what you wrote. Not me. Are you braindead?

You started touting the 1980s, and the next thing you know, you moved up the timeline to the "mid 1990s."

I said "before the mid-90s". And before that, I never said that college basketball nosedived precisely when the 80s ended.

The stats say that UConn 99 played a softer schedule than Syracuse 87, and that's before we factor in the fact that, as many top coaches have said, basketball quality was clearly better in the 80s than the very late 90s.

UConn did what it had to do and won the title. Awesome. But Syracuse 87 was clearly more talented, a better team. FWIW, they were also better than the 03 Syracuse team that finally gave Boeheim his national title. It's just how the game has changed.

If you want to go through life believing otherwise, feel free. Just don't expect anyone outside your UConn fan-cocoon to think so to. None of the UConn national title teams were anything special by historical standards. The 2011 team had an amazing tournament run but wasn't the best team in the country by a longshot, they got hot in the tournament. And Duke was the best team in 1999. The 2004 team was possibly the best team its year, but couldn't even win the Big East regular season, barely beat Pitt to win the Big East, wasn't even a #1 seed, and squeaked by Duke again by the smallest of margins (IIRC, Duke led most of the game and seemed to have it in the bag with just a few minutes left), so was no great shakes. That's about all we can say for it.

At best, maybe the 2004 or 1999 team would be ranked at about the 5th or 6th best Big East team ever. Being very generous.

Like Jon Taffer always says.......SHUT IT DOWN!!!!!!!