(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I am not sure I can roll with you on that one there boss. I don't think it is easy to say that the Syracuse team was better than all of those UConn teams. Especially because they team they lost to, Indiana, was not historically a very good team in terms of other championship teams.

(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?

(03-12-2014 08:15 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 11:31 PM)Maize Wrote:  The real BIG EAST died on 18 September 2011..…that was the date when the Heart and Soul of the BIG EAST left for the ACC...Syracuse was that Heart and Soul.

It really died when it started dipping its feet in FB out of necessity. This was really good for WVU; however, helped it build the program it became.

You have to imagine then the bball schools breaking off in 1993.

That would mean no Syracuse, no Pitt, no Louisville eventually, and probably no UConn.

What would BE basketball be like in such a case?

(03-12-2014 09:12 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I am not sure I can roll with you on that one there boss. I don't think it is easy to say that the Syracuse team was better than all of those UConn teams. Especially because they team they lost to, Indiana, was not historically a very good team in terms of other championship teams.

Yeah, but Indiana had Bobby Knight, who was arguably the best coach of all time, in terms of accomplishing more with less. He won 3 national titles and didn't have 1/3 the talent Dean Smith had over the years.

Heck, in 1984, Knight led an Indiana team featuring Uwe Blab to an NCAA tournament victory over #1 North Carolina, which had Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, and Brad Daugherty. Jordan still says that's his most frustrating loss ever.

He could beat anyone on any given day.

(03-12-2014 08:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen a gtown fan defend cuse like this........

Remember, I jumped into this to refute claims that Cuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. So don't get carried away, LOL.

(03-12-2014 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 09:12 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I am not sure I can roll with you on that one there boss. I don't think it is easy to say that the Syracuse team was better than all of those UConn teams. Especially because they team they lost to, Indiana, was not historically a very good team in terms of other championship teams.

Yeah, but Indiana had Bobby Knight, who was arguably the best coach of all time, in terms of accomplishing more with less. He won 3 national titles and didn't have 1/3 the talent Dean Smith had over the years.

That was not your claim initially. Plus I don't know about the "doing more with less," as two of his title teams were the most loaded teams of their years, and he actually lost a title (in 75) that had an even better team than his undefeated 76 team. Just can't follow you with this one.

Plus, last I checked, Coach K isn't exactly an unknown, unproven, non accomplished coach either. He has surpassed Knight in nearly every measurable way. Classic teacher pupil situation

(03-12-2014 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen a gtown fan defend cuse like this........

Remember, I jumped into this to refute claims that Cuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. So don't get carried away, LOL.

you are absolutely correct. an admin from one of the c7 schools was quoted saying the very same thing.

i know this is a touchy subject for uconn fans and is a particular sore point.

all you have to do is to look at the schedule matchups. how many former BE schools does SU have on the schedule? how many does uconn have?

i think you found your answer......

(03-12-2014 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen a gtown fan defend cuse like this........

Remember, I jumped into this to refute claims that Cuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. So don't get carried away, LOL.

you are absolutely correct. an admin from one of the c7 schools was quoted saying the very same thing.

i know this is a touchy subject for uconn fans and is a particular sore point.

all you have to do is to look at the schedule matchups. how many former BE schools does SU have on the schedule? how many does uconn have?

i think you found your answer......

The sore spot is all of you high-jacking my thread.

(03-12-2014 10:57 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(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:  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?

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.

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

(03-12-2014 10:57 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(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:  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?

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.

Gonzaga? Cuse played a very weak Providence team in the Final 4!! Heck, if we're going to go back in such a fashion, I'm sure you'll find much tougher teams than, say, 1987 Indiana, that UConn lost to, for instance 2002 Maryland or 1995 UCLA, and we'd make the same exact excuses.

I know the irrelevance of Georgetown post 1989 is tough on you, but good god, get a grip.

(03-12-2014 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen a gtown fan defend cuse like this........

Remember, I jumped into this to refute claims that Cuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. So don't get carried away, LOL.

you are absolutely correct. an admin from one of the c7 schools was quoted saying the very same thing.

i know this is a touchy subject for uconn fans and is a particular sore point.

all you have to do is to look at the schedule matchups. how many former BE schools does SU have on the schedule? how many does uconn have?

i think you found your answer......

UConn was in talks to schedule old BE teams but couldn't do more than one game this year. The Providence thing will happen I bet, that was close to happening last year, and a couple more.

Regardless, UConn has several home and homes scheduled right now with the likes of Florida, Tennessee, Stanford, Washington, (Kansas is in the works), and when you couple that with tournaments to play Maryland, Indiana, Boston College, etc., it's not so easy as you imagine. I guarantee you they'll be playing in the future.

(03-12-2014 12:08 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen a gtown fan defend cuse like this........

Remember, I jumped into this to refute claims that Cuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. So don't get carried away, LOL.

you are absolutely correct. an admin from one of the c7 schools was quoted saying the very same thing.

i know this is a touchy subject for uconn fans and is a particular sore point.

all you have to do is to look at the schedule matchups. how many former BE schools does SU have on the schedule? how many does uconn have?

i think you found your answer......

UConn was in talks to schedule old BE teams but couldn't do more than one game this year. The Providence thing will happen I bet, that was close to happening last year, and a couple more.

Regardless, UConn has several home and homes scheduled right now with the likes of Florida, Tennessee, Stanford, Washington, (Kansas is in the works), and when you couple that with tournaments to play Maryland, Indiana, Boston College, etc., it's not so easy as you imagine. I guarantee you they'll be playing in the future.

gtown, nova, & sju were very quick to schedule cuse on a yearly basis

not a single program has agreed to play uconn

sorry dude but su was the program that was the heart & soul of the league. the quotes say so & the scheduling trends say so.....

(03-12-2014 12:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 12:08 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen a gtown fan defend cuse like this........

Remember, I jumped into this to refute claims that Cuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. So don't get carried away, LOL.

you are absolutely correct. an admin from one of the c7 schools was quoted saying the very same thing.

i know this is a touchy subject for uconn fans and is a particular sore point.

all you have to do is to look at the schedule matchups. how many former BE schools does SU have on the schedule? how many does uconn have?

i think you found your answer......

UConn was in talks to schedule old BE teams but couldn't do more than one game this year. The Providence thing will happen I bet, that was close to happening last year, and a couple more.

Regardless, UConn has several home and homes scheduled right now with the likes of Florida, Tennessee, Stanford, Washington, (Kansas is in the works), and when you couple that with tournaments to play Maryland, Indiana, Boston College, etc., it's not so easy as you imagine. I guarantee you they'll be playing in the future.

gtown, nova, & sju were very quick to schedule cuse on a yearly basis

not a single program has agreed to play uconn

sorry dude but su was the program that was the heart & soul of the league. the quotes say so & the scheduling trends say so.....

Show me where not a single program wanted to schedule UConn, because the Hartford Courant stories pointed out the exact reverse. UConn was in talks but couldn't schedule. They will have games scheduled coming up soon this offseason. It will blow up your whole point.

(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:  

(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-11-2014 03:35 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  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?

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.

(03-12-2014 11:18 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 09:12 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I am not sure I can roll with you on that one there boss. I don't think it is easy to say that the Syracuse team was better than all of those UConn teams. Especially because they team they lost to, Indiana, was not historically a very good team in terms of other championship teams.

Yeah, but Indiana had Bobby Knight, who was arguably the best coach of all time, in terms of accomplishing more with less. He won 3 national titles and didn't have 1/3 the talent Dean Smith had over the years.

That was not your claim initially. Plus I don't know about the "doing more with less," as two of his title teams were the most loaded teams of their years, and he actually lost a title (in 75) that had an even better team than his undefeated 76 team. Just can't follow you with this one.

Not sure if 1981 Indiana was more loaded than the Carolina team it beat, which had James Worthy, Al Wood, and Sam Perkins all play major roles. That's probably better than Isaiah, Landon Turner, and Ray Tolbert, who was an even bigger NBA bust than Wood.

Indiana went into the 1981 tournament with a 21-9 record and a #3 seed. Nothing special. And their unbeaten 1976 team was famous for how guys like Scott May and Kent Benson flopped in the NBA. In retrospect, those teams had Knight, most of all.

(03-12-2014 12:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Show me where not a single program wanted to schedule UConn, because the Hartford Courant stories pointed out the exact reverse. UConn was in talks but couldn't schedule. They will have games scheduled coming up soon this offseason. It will blow up your whole point.

Gotta say that the C-7 not scheduling UConn is a weak point. The split was finalized in March or so, 7 months before Midnight Madness. There just wasn't a lot of time.

(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:  

(03-12-2014 07:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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?

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

(03-12-2014 03:18 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 12:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Show me where not a single program wanted to schedule UConn, because the Hartford Courant stories pointed out the exact reverse. UConn was in talks but couldn't schedule. They will have games scheduled coming up soon this offseason. It will blow up your whole point.

Gotta say that the C-7 not scheduling UConn is a weak point. The split was finalized in March or so, 7 months before Midnight Madness. There just wasn't a lot of time.

Yea, there has been reports of discussions with nova and Providence anyway about getting something going.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Some are confusing success with the Heart and Soul/Spirit of the Old BIG EAST. Nobody with any sense would dispute the success of the Huskies from 1999 to 2013 but the BIG EAST Brand was built with St. John's, Georgetown and Syracuse.

When the Orange announced that they were leaving in September 2011 it ripped the Heart out. That was the school that held it together...notice after that the seems came completely apart...doubtful that would've happen if UConn or any other school left...

(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.