UConn’s repeat in 2024 > UF’s repeat in 2007

[thebasketballreasons]

I know it’s a strange comparison, but the more I think about UConn winning in 2024 the more I found it impressive. The one and done era made it very difficult to repeat, it’s much harder to keep the same rosters. UF in 2007 returned all starters just to repeat, barring injuries it was just a matter of time until they won it all. UConn however, lost their best players from last year and yet got even better. One can argue that UF beat better teams along the way, but UConn’s wins were also more dominant and they beat second best team in the country by 15. Not to discredit the achievement of that UF team, they are still the greatest team assembled in the 21st century, but I feel UConn’s repeat was much harder and more impressive.

 

[Random UK Fan]

Good points. I haven’t been on the UConn train (not antiUConn), but Ive slowly come around to seeing that the new era has been figured out. The One and Done method had its moment and passed. Hurley was patient and quietly worked his method and has definitely earned my respect. UF was a great example of what the bluebloods have seen rise and fall over and over and have their moment in the sun. I think Hurley has been the trailblazer for a new era.

 

[Necessary Roughness]

This team would beat any team in history.

 

[ExitFlagger]

This team would beat any team in history.

LMFAO 🤣

 

[thebasketballreasons]

This team would beat any team in history.

07 UF, 09 UNC and 18 Nova are still better than them, but UConn could win at the right circumstance.

 

[Montana81]

07 UF, 09 UNC and 18 Nova are still better than them, but UConn could win at the right circumstance.

Looking at Kenpom, They finished with the 2nd best adjem as long as he’s tracked it(2002) behind only 2015 Kentucky. So best among actual title winners.

 

[954gator]

I know it’s a strange comparison, but the more I think about UConn winning in 2024 the more I found it impressive. The one and done era made it very difficult to repeat, it’s much harder to keep the same rosters. UF in 2007 returned all starters just to repeat, barring injuries it was just a matter of time until they won it all. UConn however, lost their best players from last year and yet got even better. One can argue that UF beat better teams along the way, but UConn’s wins were also more dominant and they beat second best team in the country by 15. Not to discredit the achievement of that UF team, they are still the greatest team assembled in the 21st century, but I feel UConn’s repeat was much harder and more impressive.

The NCAA talent level of the opposition back in mid/late 2000s was waaaaaay stiffer than it is now also.
I agree them going back to back with roster turnover is crazy tough though. Definitely more impressive in that sense.
As far as the talent in the NCAA then vs now....oof. Don't get me wrong the game has evolved and teams in general play a more improved game nowadays, but the relative talent is far far behind that era.

 

[954gator]

Name me the best players UCONN faced in their run. Edey and... I'm sure theres some that may end up being decent, but it's not the same. The talent in college basketball back then was off the charts.
Players Florida faced in their runs...
Greg Oden
Mike Connely
Russell Westbrook
Kyle Lowery
Randy Foye
Aaron Brooks
Malik Hairston
Darren Collison
Roy Hibbert
Jeff Green
Allan Ray
Farmar
That's just off the top of my head.

Back then EVERY squad was a loaded squad. KD, Westbrook, Curry, Rondo, Rudy Gay Draymon Green, etc etc. Shoot how far would a team with the Lopez brothers go in todays game with so few quality bigs?

Pick any blue blood or decent name program from back in 06/07 and check the rosters. UK was a mid pack SEC team with Rajon Rondo, Randolph Morris, and Joey Crawford.
UCONN itself was probably more loaded back then than now. Nowadays a lot of the best players are coming from abroad. It's a different era for sure.

When guys like Durant, Beasely, and Derrick Rose went one and done it was a huge deal, because that just didn't happen often back then. Teams had so much more experience playing with each other. Now you got kids that might not cut it in Europe leaving early SMH.

All that being said I won't argue, bc I do believe what UCONN did WAS more impressive because they had different guys and had that roster turnover. That being said I don't believe guys like Edey and Caraban would be anywhere near as dominant in the paint back then as they were this year. So few bigs to oppose them. These freshman UK kids that might go first round that can't play much D for example would be getting limited minutes at best back then. Relatively UCONN was for sure more dominant, but moreso bc there just aren't very many great squads on a year by year basis like their used to be.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I think saying UCONN was so dominant b/c there wasn't any good/great teams, is well, sort of misleading. Maybe they were just simply that better than everyone else? Kinda of like the MJ/LBJ debate----"Well MJ never beat a juggernaut team in the finals.."---Well that's b/c his team was the juggernaut.

These past two UCONN teams have been elite. I mean they made a very good Purdue team look pedestrian..

 

[thebasketballreasons]

I think saying UCONN was so dominant b/c there wasn't any good/great teams, is well, sort of misleading. Maybe they were just simply that better than everyone else? Kinda of like the MJ/LBJ debate----"Well MJ never beat a juggernaut team in the finals.."---Well that's b/c his team was the juggernaut.

These past two UCONN teams have been elite. I mean they made a very good Purdue team look pedestrian..

I agree with this, especially the MJ and Lebron analogy. Lebron was credited to beat tougher opponents, but replace him with MJ the juggernauts may actually look easier and beatable. Other than the 17 Warriors which are a cheat code, the other opponents he faced in the nba finals are not necessarily better than 91 Lakers, 93 Suns, 96 SuperSonics and 97 Jazz. If we replace MJ by Lebron on that Bulls team, and he went 2-4 in NBA finals rather than 6-0, are we going to say how Lebron was so unlucky that he had to go up against the super teams in the finals?

 

[UL_1986]

I agree with this, especially the MJ and Lebron analogy. Lebron was credited to beat tougher opponents, but replace him with MJ the juggernauts may actually look easier and beatable. Other than the 17 Warriors which are a cheat code, the other opponents he faced in the nba finals are not necessarily better than 91 Lakers, 93 Suns, 96 SuperSonics and 97 Jazz. If we replace MJ by Lebron on that Bulls team, and he went 2-4 in NBA finals rather than 6-0, are we going to say how Lebron was so unlucky that he had to go up against the super teams in the finals?

Idk man. Those Spurs teams in the 00’s were legit. Plus their 2014 run was elite. Timmy, Parker, Ginobli, Kawhi, Green, Boris Diaw, Patty Mills, Bonner and Splitter. They wore teams down, and could play in any era. One of the most fluid, underrated teams ever.

 

[snowsquirrel11]

Hard to say the one and done rule made it harder while ignoring the free agency portal with guys that had a 5th year of eligibility from Covid. That said, this UCONN team is one of the best (metrically speaking) of all time and nobody was going to beat them this year IMO.

 

[Montana81]

I said it on House of Blue. But watching this Uconn team was like someone pulled one of the really good UK/Duke/Kansas/Arkansas/UNC/Umass/Arizona teams from the early and mid 90’s and putting them against the current college basketball landscape.

Teams back then were stacked with 3 and 4 year guys and it was noticeable because they were all much better at what they did. Just a much cleaner game.

 

[Deepelm]

 

[KisteK]

Meh, Kansas beat both '24 UConn and '07 Florida
.. and by 2009, that UNC team knew better.
😅🤣🫠
(18 Nova punched 'em in da mouf, tho)

srsly tho, these were each phenomenal teams.

 

[954gator]

I think saying UCONN was so dominant b/c there wasn't any good/great teams, is well, sort of misleading. Maybe they were just simply that better than everyone else? Kinda of like the MJ/LBJ debate----"Well MJ never beat a juggernaut team in the finals.."---Well that's b/c his team was the juggernaut.

These past two UCONN teams have been elite. I mean they made a very good Purdue team look pedestrian..

I didn't mean it as a slight I just see people saying they think this UCONN team would go out and dominate past teams because kenpom this or advanced stats say this etc etc. Those stats DO show how much they dominated the teams they played, but I'm not sold that they are a team that's on this whole other level than anything we've seen before.

The back to back was crazy impressive, I wasn't sure I'd be alive to see another back to back so that's saying a lot. It's just not a team where I say...oh man there's absolutely no way to stop this guy, or man they shoot impossibly good from outside, or there's no way anyone could match up to them in the post etc etc. That's all I'm saying.

 

[954gator]

Good points. I haven’t been on the UConn train (not antiUConn), but Ive slowly come around to seeing that the new era has been figured out. The One and Done method had its moment and passed. Hurley was patient and quietly worked his method and has definitely earned my respect. UF was a great example of what the bluebloods have seen rise and fall over and over and have their moment in the sun. I think Hurley has been the trailblazer for a new era.

I also think this generation of players don't have the same killer instinct/ work ethic as they used to. With how recruiting is now, the players that have "that guy" potential tend to get babied and don't need to work as hard for their spots anymore. These kids nowadays pay more attention to their social media and brand than they do to their game.

 

[954gator]

Also more and more kids are open to the idea of getting Euro league experience earlier to develop their games. Which honestly isn't a bad idea for players that don't get home sick.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I didn't mean it as a slight I just see people saying they think this UCONN team would go out and dominate past teams because kenpom this or advanced stats say this etc etc. Those stats DO show how much they dominated the teams they played, but I'm not sold that they are a team that's on this whole other level than anything we've seen before.

The back to back was crazy impressive, I wasn't sure I'd be alive to see another back to back so that's saying a lot. It's just not a team where I say...oh man there's absolutely no way to stop this guy, or man they shoot impossibly good from outside, or there's no way anyone could match up to them in the post etc etc. That's all I'm saying.

By no means was I insinuating they were THAT type of team. But it just seems people are trying to dismiss their accomplishments. We'll never know how they would stack up to other teams....Would I put them in a category of 96 UK, or what not? No. But they've been pretty damn dominant...12 straight NCAAT wins by 12+ points. Crazy.

Florida 2006 title winning team won 5 of 6 by 13+. But their 2007 title team only won 2 games by DD. 1990 and 91 Vegas was pushed multiple times---eventually losing in the FF.

92 DUke had to hit a buzzer beater....to even get back to the FF. Then survive against Indiana.

Just insane to think someone could win 12 straight NCAAT games as they have.

 

[ExitFlagger]

By no means was I insinuating they were THAT type of team. But it just seems people are trying to dismiss their accomplishments. We'll never know how they would stack up to other teams....Would I put them in a category of 96 UK, or what not? No. But they've been pretty damn dominant...12 straight NCAAT wins by 12+ points. Crazy.

Florida 2006 title winning team won 5 of 6 by 13+. But their 2007 title team only won 2 games by DD. 1990 and 91 Vegas was pushed multiple times---eventually losing in the FF.

92 DUke had to hit a buzzer beater....to even get back to the FF. Then survive against Indiana.

Just insane to think someone could win 12 straight NCAAT games as they have.

They're obviously really good, but my point is...everybody's always talking about how much weaker CBB is today than the 90s/early 2000s, yet they're just as impressed by a team dominating the field now as one that did it in that era? I don't see this UConn team being nearly as dominant vs top teams from that period.

 

[IUfanBorden]

They're obviously really good, but my point is...everybody's always talking about how much weaker CBB is today than the 90s/early 2000s, yet they're just as impressed by a team dominating the field now as one that did it in that era? I don't see this UConn team being nearly as dominant vs top teams from that period.

Don't need to be..Are they better than 91-92 Duke? Possible. Meh. 94 Arkansas or 95 UCLA? I'd wager that. 97 Arizona..98 UK? ITS not out of the question.

Regardless...this was a very good team. No reason to compare, it's just trying to diminish IMO

 

[Deepelm]

No reason to compare, it's just trying to diminish IMO

Bingo. Same thing happened last season, and now we validated it, and on they go. Its honestly freaking hilarious.

 

[thebasketballreasons]

They're obviously really good, but my point is...everybody's always talking about how much weaker CBB is today than the 90s/early 2000s, yet they're just as impressed by a team dominating the field now as one that did it in that era? I don't see this UConn team being nearly as dominant vs top teams from that period.

They don’t have to be dominant against teams in the 90s/00s, they just have to be able to compete with them which I feel they surely can. In this century I’d argue that 07 UF, 09 UNC and 18 Nova are better teams, but UConn can definitely beat them on a good day.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Bingo. Same thing happened last season, and now we validated it, and on they go. Its honestly freaking hilarious.

Did I say they weren't good? I just said they're really good. Guess that's not enough.

Only reason I'm comparing to past teams is you have people saying this is one of the greatest teams ever. Someone here even said they'd beat any team in history. I don't agree, and I don't think they'd look that dominant in the pre-OAD era. Sorry if that triggers you.

 

[954gator]

Did I say they weren't good? I just said they're really good. Guess that's not enough.

Only reason I'm comparing to past teams is you have people saying this is one of the greatest teams ever. Someone here even said they'd beat any team in history. I don't agree, and I don't think they'd look that dominant in the pre-OAD era. Sorry if that triggers you.

Yeah my response was to this idea that had been circling the media moreso than any posters here.

I mean the most dominant teams of all time have to be those UCLA teams in the past right?