Which champion had the most impressive tourney run?
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
3 of Duke's 5 champions are in the Top 10 and 4 of the 5 are in the Top 20.
IU won by an average of 23ppg in 1981. Closest game in the tourney was the Final, vs UNC. WOn 63-50.
Beat Maryland 99-64
Beat UAB 87-72
Beat St. Joe, 78-46
Beat LSU, 67-49
Then Carolina 63-50.
Had this team not lost 9 games in the regular season, they'd probably be considered one of CBB's greatest teams. By tourney time, they were a juggernaut.
Just saying.......SmokinSmile
Beat Maryland 99-64
Beat UAB 87-72
Beat St. Joe, 78-46
Beat LSU, 67-49
Then Carolina 63-50.
Had this team not lost 9 games in the regular season, they'd probably be considered one of CBB's greatest teams. By tourney time, they were a juggernaut.
Just saying.......SmokinSmile
Metrics don't mean nothing. Did the metrics show NC State beating Houston in 1983? Did they show Villanova Beating Georgetown in 1984? Also UK didn't have answer for Larry Johnson, actually no one had a answer for him. Stacey Augmon would of clamped down on your best wing and Greg Anthony/Anderson Hunt would of limited Delk and they would of got their points to. That team IMO is one of the all time greats. 1996 UK was good but that 1990 UNLV team a squad of grown men. The following year Duke got them, same exact team so when it comes to metrics/analytics or what have you, that's garbage, you still gotta lace 'em up and play.
People seem to forget that team lost 5 games, including Santa Barbara Laughing. The 91 team that lost to Duke in the title game was better.
Based on your double negative you're saying they do, indeed, mean something. Winking
Not really, we all can say this team was better because of numbers/metrics. I go by what I seen and offer my opinion.
Alrighty then. We will just take your word on this hypothetical game that '90 UNLV would smash '96 UK then.
I don't think you understand what I am saying.
You are trying to argue that '96 UK could not beat '90 UNLV.... yet '90 UNLV lost to Santa freakin' Barbara (and 4 other teams). The 2 teams UK lost to in '96 were also Final Four teams and UK also beat both of them that season as well. That's all I'm saying. 1990 UNLV wasn't some unbeatable juggernaut just because they smashed Duke by 30. That's just the only game people remember.
Anyone can win. And to me the 2016 Nova team played in a tougher season and got hot at the right time while this year's Nova team was strong from start to finish.
I think many people though look at the strength of those seasons and the other teams. 2012 with better teams and talent than 2016 or 2018. And everyone knows of the strength of the 2008 season at the top. Nova would be a battle but the top 5 teams from that season (Kansas, UNC, UCLA, Memphis, Texas) would destroy the other 3 teams in the F4 from this season and imo 2016 as well (2016 UNC arguable but to me Nova dominated that game till a late run).
The opinions of those seasons overall are why I believe many people feel 12 UK and 08 KU would beat these Nova teams. Right or wrong I see the argument.
Indeed. There are also quite a few teams that didn't win it all that would smash most of these teams, '91 UNLV and '15 UK included.
That Santa Barbara team was really good. Won 22 games. Got an at-large bid(9 seed) and advanced to the 2nd round of the NCAAT. They lost to #1 seed and Big 10 champ MSU, 62-58.
UNLV's other losses were @ 16 LSU(5 seed), @#12 Oklahoma(1seed), @ #25 NM State(6 seed) and vs Kansas(2 seed) in preseason NIT. Its not like they lost to a bunch of bad teams. Or hell, lost to even ONE bad team. All their losses were against really good teams.
Not sure 1991 UNLV was better. The loss of Butler(15ppg) was big. As was the loss of Scurry. He(Scurry) was "the do the dirty work" player. Great rebounder. Those two were key parts to UNLV's title run the year before.
If this team wasn't the best since the enlarged field than there were a lot of teams that sucked that year. They were flat ass bullies. They started five freaks of nature molded into a bball team. But if one was to look at all time best teams it had to be UCLA with Alcindor, Rowe, and Wickes.
Of course not.
those two teams were not worth a shit
if it was so easy to win in 2008 and 2012 then why didn't Duke win it?
Again........UCSB was a good team. Won 22 games. At large bid(9seed). Lost in 2nd round to 1 seed MSU. They were a good, good team. So were the other 4.
Beating Duke by 30 doesn't happen often. Much less in the title game. Plus, Vegas had a lot of very good wins-------#16 Iowa, #13 UL, #20 Arizona, #11 Arkansas. They were very, very good.
Not really. UNLV lost two important pieces........Butler and Scurry. Those two were key parts.
Not according to that list, which is what the thread is about. They certainly don't if you look at what was expected based on this. They were a good team though.
No they don't. UNLV had the largest difference between their actual margin of victory and their expected margin. Meaning they likely played harder teams, and smashed them all.
96 Kentucky difference was +8.5.
90 UNLV difference was +10.5.
Kentucky lost to two teams in '96. Both teams made the Final Four. So...
We are talking about the championship runs. That's it. That's the point of this thread. All the other regular season crap doesn't matter. I'm sure UNLV played some good teams during their NCAAT run.
I have no problem with people thinking '90 UNLV was the greatest ever. That was a helluva team. Personally I'll take the team that lost 2 games, both to final 4 teams and had like 9 NBA players. But you can't go wrong either way.
I don’t think that is a bad argument at all. I think it is a just the hyperbole people tend to disagree with.
UK of 96 was great. UNLV of 1990 was great. To say one would smash the other is silly. Both were terrific. I'm not arguing Vegas would win. Just pointing out that their 5 losses were to really good teams. All five made the tourney. All five were on the road; sans KU. Neutral site. SO its not like they lost games to some bad or average teams.
1990 UNLV was really, really good. As was UK in 1996. That game would be epic. Both would cause match-up issues. Not sure though UK would have had anyone who could;ve dealt with Johnson. That dude was a monster. But..........Kentucky's depth was unreal. Vegas only went about 7-8 deep. But those 7 were extremely good. Hunt, Anderson, Augumon and Johnson were just nightmares. Man that would be a great, great game.
Similar threads
