Jump to content

Bring on the Terps

Sports Guy

By Sports Guy
in Maryland Terp Basketball

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply
BigSteve Newbie

BigSteve

Posted
Posted
Do you think UCLA wins all of those titles with restrictions on scholarships and a 64 team tourney field?

Does it matter? Even in that era, it was far beyond anything that had ever been done before. The best run before UCLA was three in four years by Kentucky so even without the large fields or the scholarships it was an inconceivable run. Surely you are not comparing Duke to UCLA.

And Duke's number one seeds are not all that impressive when they result in a flameout in the Sweet 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Does it matter? Even in that era, it was far beyond anything that had ever been done before. The best run before UCLA was three in four years by Kentucky so even without the large fields or the scholarships it was an inconceivable run. Surely you are not comparing Duke to UCLA.

And Duke's number one seeds are not all that impressive when they result in a flameout in the Sweet 16.

Yes i am and i am not the only one. This has been a topic of debate over the last few years...Many people think there is a legit comparison here.

Joe Lunardi wrote a great article about this 2 years ago( i think it was 2 years ago).

ND...That was an incredible run but again, how many years of that was when the field was 64?(can't remember what year the field expanded..1986??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigSteve Newbie

BigSteve

Posted
Posted
Yes i am and i am not the only one. This has been a topic of debate over the last few years...Many people think there is a legit comparison here.

Joe Lunardi wrote a great article about this 2 years ago( i think it was 2 years ago).

ND...That was an incredible run but again, how many years of that was when the field was 64?(can't remember what year the field expanded..1986??)

If by lots of people you mean yourself, Joe Lunardi, Dick Vitale, and the residents of Durham, NC then yes, lots of people have posited that argument.

How are three titles in twenty years more impressive than 10 in 12 years? Even beyond the titles, what about the unbeaten streak of UCLA? Dook certainly didn't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Again, no scholarship restrictions and not a deep tourney field.

What UCLA did in their time was impressive but what Duke is doing in their time may be even more impressive.

BTW, i am not saying one way or another which team was mopre impressive. But to push the idea aside is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuclear Dish AAA

Nuclear Dish

Posted
Posted
Yes i am and i am not the only one. This has been a topic of debate over the last few years...Many people think there is a legit comparison here.

Joe Lunardi wrote a great article about this 2 years ago( i think it was 2 years ago).

ND...That was an incredible run but again, how many years of that was when the field was 64?(can't remember what year the field expanded..1986??)

The field expanded in 1985. So it's 9 in a row with 2 wins to reach the Sweet 16 and 4 prior to that with only 1 win. And in those 4 years, they were a #1 seed twice and a #2 seed twice. You care to suggest that they'd have lost in a first-round game in any of those 4 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuclear Dish AAA

Nuclear Dish

Posted
Posted
What UCLA did in their time was impressive but what Duke is doing in their time may be even more impressive.

I love how you use the present tense, and yet, their recent NCAA play is nothing special. They had an outstanding run in the late '80 and early '90's. But otherwise, what they've done on a national level in the past 11 years isn't all that spectacular, certainly nothing worth comparing to UCLA.

On the other hand, their run in the ACC tournament has, unfortunately, been historic, and is worthy of all the praise you seek. There can be no denying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sports Guy are you Dick Vitale ? You are such a expert on Duke maybe you should move to Durham and room with K's buttboy Wojo

Seeing how you seem to be totally classless, i can see how you are a Terps fan.

ND, not suggesting UNC would have lost....My point is though, when you look at teams from the era of "the field of 64", accomplishments of teams, even if it is just final 4's, are impressive.

Are you saying that Mich St has not been impressive? Just because they have only won 1 title does not take away from the brilliance of their tourney play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuclear Dish AAA

Nuclear Dish

Posted
Posted
Are you saying that Mich St has not been impressive? Just because they have only won 1 title does not take away from the brilliance of their tourney play.

There's a difference between impressive and comparing them to UCLA. You want to talk about the run up until about '94? Fine, we can discuss whether that is comparable to UCLA's run. But to say that "what Dook is doing in their time" includes a period that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the comparison you made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
There's a difference between impressive and comparing them to UCLA. You want to talk about the run up until about '94? Fine, we can discuss whether that is comparable to UCLA's run. But to say that "what Dook is doing in their time" includes a period that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the comparison you made.

Since the 1985-86 season(tourney field expanded by then):

ACC tourney titles: 9...Finalist 4 other times

NCAA titles: 3...Most in that time period

Final 4's: 9

Sweet 16's: 15 times

25+ win seasons: 15(3 seasons of 24, 1 of 23)

Not sure how many #1 seeds they have but i think it is around 8-10.

Taking that whole body of work, there is a case that, in this era of the sport, that Duke accomplished more than UCLA. UCLA had it easier. Just the way it is. But, they still won and won and won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuclear Dish AAA

Nuclear Dish

Posted
Posted
Since the 1985-86 season(tourney field expanded by then):

ACC tourney titles: 9...Finalist 4 other times

NCAA titles: 3...Most in that time period

Final 4's: 9

Sweet 16's: 15 times

25+ win seasons: 15(3 seasons of 24, 1 of 23)

Not sure how many #1 seeds they have but i think it is around 8-10.

Taking that whole body of work, there is a case that, in this era of the sport, that Duke accomplished more than UCLA. UCLA had it easier. Just the way it is. But, they still won and won and won.

And yet, if you go back just a few more season to 1982, you'll find that UNC can nearly match that (3 titles, 8 Final Fours, 17 Sweet 16s, etc.). So the level of dominance is not such that you can make a comparison to UCLA's run.

You could make the case that Dook's run from '86-'94 with 7 Final Fours, 5 Finals, and 2 titles, including the last back-to-backs, all in a 9-year stretch is comparable, although I still think it doesn't mach what UCLA managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And yet, if you go back just a few more season to 1982, you'll find that UNC can nearly match that (3 titles, 8 Final Fours, 17 Sweet 16s, etc.). So the level of dominance is not such that you can make a comparison to UCLA's run.

You could make the case that Dook's run from '86-'94 with 7 Final Fours, 5 Finals, and 2 titles, including the last back-to-backs, all in a 9-year stretch is comparable, although I still think it doesn't mach what UCLA managed.

Heck, you can put UNC in the discussion. I am not one to demean the accomplishment of a school, even if i dislike the school.

But some of UNC's accomplishments were done in the pre field of 64 era. But nonetheless UNC deserves to be considered somewhat of a dynasty as well. I think college bball can be measured in differently than other sports...I do not think you have to win a bunch of titles to be considered a dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • vab
      Back to back 90 or more win seasons

      By vab · Posted

      Still with a chance to do this for the first time since 1982-83. Would be one more nice accomplishment for this organization. 
    • Frobby
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Frobby · Posted

      The weird thing about our bullpen is that they rarely blow leads.   They have a 69% save rate, 4th highest in baseball.  They make it scary, but generally, when they have the lead, they get the job done.   Where they are really bad is keeping games close when we’re down a run or two, last night being a classic example of that.   This year’s team has 32 comeback wins, compared to 48 last year.   Why is that?   Part of it is obviously on the offense, but part of it is that the bullpen doesn’t keep us in striking distance when we’re behind.   One way you can tell this is by the W/L records of the starters and the bullpen.  Last year, the starters were 57-40, this year they’re 60-49.   The starter got the decision 12 more times this year than last year, including 9 more losses (with 3 games to play).   That tells you that when the team is losing when the starter is pulled, they keep losing.  Meanwhile, the relievers were 44-21 last year, 28-22 now. They’re not picking up wins because they don’t give the offense a chance to catch up and get the win for the bullpen guy.    
    • atom_25
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By atom_25 · Posted

      I do not disagree with above posts.  Also I am pretty sure that this time last season, the Texas Rangers Hangout was saying the exact same things as the Rangers Pen.  Point being, you never know until you know.  The pen is shaky, but is capable of putting together a solid run from time to time.  
    • Just Regular
      DH - O'Hearn v. Kjerstad

      By Just Regular · Posted

      Roster Resource thinks it has tonight's lineup and Kjerstad on bench again. He is 7 AB shy of 130 MLB regular season AB with 3 games left, and if he ends up short some prospect list makers may still label him one.    If still with the Orioles, he will be 26 years old by Sarasota. I think the OP has its answer as it has been Cole and Lopez these two nights and the team is preparing for that intensity.
    • One eyed Bird
      We’re onto Minnesota

      By One eyed Bird · Posted

      I care I bet the over on 88 wins, looked like a lock now not so much, come on O’s, daddy needs some new shoes
    • LookitsPuck
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By LookitsPuck · Posted

      I’d have brought up Young immediately after DFAing Kimbrel. Baker has no place on this club this year. Would have been nice to see Young up here.
    • Roy Firestone
      The Achilles heel for this team is the bullpen

      By Roy Firestone · Posted

      Yeah, but they could've brought him up a month ago and seen what they might have...And Im not "pining" for Brandon Young, just wondering if he's any better than some we have in the pen..

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...