upstater1
1st String
Posts: 1,404
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: UConn
Location:
|
RE: Nova wins Big East and ends 32 year drought...
(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (03-11-2014 03:35 PM)upstater1 Wrote: (03-11-2014 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (03-11-2014 09:40 AM)upstater1 Wrote: (03-10-2014 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: There is no "strawman". You repeatedly have talked about post-1990 Big East, since that is the era in which UConn made its mark. You have also talked about other times, like 99-04 and 08-13, but the basic division has been pre- and post- 1990.
But that doesn't matter, since the Big East's identity was formed in the 1980s, and UConn simply was not a significant part of that. You can ramble on and on about Kemba and six overtimes and whatever. I loved those events as well. Hell, the 1996 Big East tourney final between UConn and Georgetown was a classic too. But the Big East's golden era was defined by the 1980s. Sorry about that, but it's true.
You did not say Coleman was great, you said he was "solid" and you dismissed Seikaly out of hand, when both were better than Okafor.
And you miss the point: That 87 Syracuse team was more talented than UConn, but didn't win a title BECAUSE college basketball was better in the 1980s. The competition was better. 2004 UConn was able to win a title even though they weren't good enough to win the Big East regular season, were barely good enough to beat Pitt for the Big East tournament title, because they faced a lousy Tech team in the NCAA final. Syracuse faced much tougher competition all year long.
This is news to nobody with a brain, which is why coaches like coach K, Roy Williams, and Boeheim say it too: there is just a lot less talent in college basketball since circa 2000 than there was in the 80s.
You are wildly biased, but it's understandable because your school is irrelevant and made but 1 final 8 in 19 years, which is truly pathetic.
Those talented teams you go on and on about DID NOT have 6 NBA first round draft picks. To say they were more talented is nonsense. AND, Emeka is easily going to surpass Seikaly, he is still playing.
............
You Georgetown fans can't stand that you've been surpassed and you will try everything you possibly can to diminish the fact that you are nothing now.
I have nothing against UConn. I respect (and envy) the 3 national titles you've won over the past 15 years and acknowledge that you guys were the best basketball program over the entirety of Big East history.
But your resorting to Georgetown bashing is indicative of your failure in this discussion, which I will summarize:
1) The Big East's "heart and soul" was defined during the 1980s. That is regarded as its golden era, no matter how you try and dice and slice time periods since then. That's when it had its best teams, and when it established its national identity as a basketball power. That's why ESPN is focusing on that era in touting its upcoming Big East program. There is just more interest in recalling Ewing vs Mullin, or later Allen vs Iverson, than there is focusing on Rip Hamilton, Emika Okafor, or Kemba Walker, because the former guys were better and their teams were better.
And UConn was simply MIA during that time.
2) You keep talking about 6 first round picks but that means nothing, what matters is what the picks do in the NBA. You touted Okafor as superior to Coleman and Seikaly when clearly he has been anything but. The 1987 Syracuse team was more talented than any team UConn has ever had.
Fact is, as virtually all top coaches say, college basketball had more talent and was better in the 1980s than it was since 1999 when UConn won its titles. It just isn't as noteworthy to dominate a diminished sport, and that's probably why the 1980s and not 2000s is regarded as the Big East's defining period.
Sorry if any of this offends you, but it is what it is.
1. Nope, the best teams were not from the 1980s with the exception of the NC Georgetown team. UConn's teams were better than all the others. More NBA pros, more dominance. Hell, Syracuse didn't even win a championship in that time. And what did St. John's do? Nothing. You keep saying UConn beat no talent teams, but the fact is, Duke 1999 is ranked as one of the 10 best teams of all time on many lists. It's just astounding ignorance to downgrade them.
Syracuse 87 didn't win because they faced tougher competition. That doesn't mean they weren't better than any of the UConn champs. They were. Talk to K, Williams, Boeheim, etc. about the quality of college basketball in the 1980s compared to the past 15 years. No comparison. Uconn 2004 was a talented team but would have lost to St Johns or Cuse back then.
I don't even need to consider UConn - Syracuse had better teams in the 80s and early 90s than the Carmelo team that won the national title.
And sorry, but as of now, Seikaly was better than Okafor. Maybe Okafor will up his NBA game and surpass him, but Seikaly had a better first 10 years, and did it against MUCH better big-man competition in the NBA than Okafor.
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?
|
|