One point about the 1999-2023 stretch: while UConn has 5 titles in this short stretch, they’ve also missed the tournament 9 times. They’ve been more boom or bust. Less consistent but they have made it count. Every Final Four has resulted in a title.
Almost. Tom Izzo would like a word . . . .One point about the 1999-2023 stretch: while UConn has 5 titles in this short stretch, they’ve also missed the tournament 9 times. They’ve been more boom or bust. Less consistent but they have made it count. Every Final Four has resulted in a title.
Blocked from memory since UNC wonAlmost. Tom Izzo would like a word . . . .
I would argue that the relevant period to judge UConn is 1990 to the present, not 1999. They had some amazing teams before they won a national championship. When you look at tournament performance over that entire period, they have really had an amazing run. I think Calhoun maybe never lost in the first round? Repeated sweet 16s, etc.Not to nit pick but since '99 they have missed 8 times. And now here is where i make excuses. No school was more negatively affected by conference realignment than UConn. Being in the island of misfit toys just sucked. Recruiting took a big hit and now that they are back in the Big East it has picked up. Andre Jackson would be wearing orange and Adama would be at Seton Hall if still in the AAC. Half of those misses were in that 5 year period.
Curious why you think that Duke team was the best team you'd ever seen.Yeah it’s more just a fact (aside from the 8 vs 9 piece, my bad) and less of a positive or negative. Fact is they beat Duke twice H2H in that stretch so pretty much ultimate bragging rights. The ‘99 win was kind of the Duke equivalent to the Scottish Game. That was the best team I’ve ever seen, having been too young to watch UNLV in 90-91.
And then 2004 was like Pats-Giants 2 with Duke having the 8 or 9 point lead with under 4 to play and blowing it.
I'll start with the roster. Here is their rotation / top 8:Curious why you think that Duke team was the best team you'd ever seen.
Are you saying this to me or T4W?I'm sure you'll disagree but UConn was the better team. They only lost 2 games one without Rip and Voskuhl playing.
To TW4. I muust have been typing as you entered it.Are you saying this to me or T4W?
Duke actually had a very solid top 8 (as I wrote earlier), but for whatever reason (maybe because the game was so close), Coach K declined to play them in the title game. Maggette, who averaged 10ppg in only 17mpg during the season, only played 11 minutes (and scored 8 points). Burgess only played 7 minutes, and Nate James 6. So a combined 24 bench minutes. Burgess averaged over 15mpg off the bench that year, and James averaged almost 15 as well. So they went from on average playing about 48 minutes a game to only 24 in the title game. I have zero idea why K did this, but it wasn't because they weren't good enough.Duke did not have enough depth. They almost did. They came one possession away from never being affected by not having enough depth. But in the end, that's what got them. UConn's bench was better in the championship game. Maggette was a fantastic sixth man, but he was a one and done who was drafted as much on potential as anything else. I mean, don't get me wrong, he was a fantastic player. But the truth was that when he was on the floor you lost defense from Battier and when Battier was on the floor, you gave up some offensive explosiveness.
Their top 5 was the best in basketball. Maybe even their top 6. But to get through an entire season, sometimes you need more than 6. The guys that UConn had on their bench were a bit better. They played more effectively and were more productive. You're only talking about a few minutes, but in a one possession game that's really all that mattered. They had guys on the bench who could neutralize Duke's rebounding, in particular, and Duke actually finished up getting significantly outrebounded.
I have no idea which of those teams wins more in a series but if depth is something that is judged for deciding how great a team is, it's the one knock on 1998-99 Duke and it cost them in the end.
I'll preface this by saying that of course there's no way I know your team as well as you. But my interpretation would be that it really is because they weren't good enough. He's a good coach. Probably the best ever. I think he understood that nothing he could put on the floor except his starters would be as good as the players UConn could have on the floor. You're talking about guys who accumulated minutes in games in which Duke was almost always winning comfortably. Without significant foul trouble, I don't think he had a choice. It was almost good enough. If those guys had played more, UConn would have won more comfortably.Duke actually had a very solid top 8 (as I wrote earlier), but for whatever reason (maybe because the game was so close), Coach K declined to play them in the title game. Maggette, who averaged 10ppg in only 17mpg during the season, only played 11 minutes (and scored 8 points). Burgess only played 7 minutes, and Nate James 6. So a combined 24 bench minutes. Burgess averaged over 15mpg off the bench that year, and James averaged almost 15 as well. So they went from on average playing about 48 minutes a game to only 24 in the title game. I have zero idea why K did this, but it wasn't because they weren't good enough.
Yeah this is where not knowing the team leads to a disagreement. Maggette was a lottery pick. Again, he scored 8 points in 11 minutes. Not sure why he didn't get more playing time. Burgess started 14 games for Duke that year. We're not talking about a guy who only got garbage time minutes. While Nate James only started 1 game that year, he was a 3rd year sophomore who averaged 28mpg in each of the following two years. These were key rotation players for Duke. You could make the argument that nearly all minutes that anyone on the 99 Duke team played were when they were comfortably ahead.I'll preface this by saying that of course there's no way I know your team as well as you. But my interpretation would be that it really is because they weren't good enough. He's a good coach. Probably the best ever. I think he understood that nothing he could put on the floor except his starters would be as good as the players UConn could have on the floor. You're talking about guys who accumulated minutes in games in which Duke was almost always winning comfortably. Without significant foul trouble, I don't think he had a choice. It was almost good enough. If those guys had played more, UConn would have won more comfortably.
This definitely takes the shine off #5UConn = box office poison, confirmed.
All fair points. As a UConn fan it's obviously it's fun to think that the Duke team was really good, because it makes the win seem more impressive. I remember going into the game thinking that people were treating it too much like a foregone conclusion. I definitely thought Duke would probably win, but the way that they were talking about it seemed a bit disproportionate. UConn had some really good wins that year, including an absolute dismantling of a really good St. John's team in the big east final. It definitely felt like one of those years where one of the two teams was going to be one of the best college teams to not have won the championship.Yeah this is where not knowing the team leads to a disagreement. Maggette was a lottery pick. Again, he scored 8 points in 11 minutes. Not sure why he didn't get more playing time. Burgess started 14 games for Duke that year. We're not talking about a guy who only got garbage time minutes. While Nate James only started 1 game that year, he was a 3rd year sophomore who averaged 28mpg in each of the following two years. These were key rotation players for Duke. You could make the argument that nearly all minutes that anyone on the 99 Duke team played were when they were comfortably ahead.
Edit: not sure any link exists, but there have also been rumors that Duke was partying that weekend... prematurely, as it turned out.
You should think of that Duke team as being awesome. It’s the same as what Duke fans thought of ‘91 UNLV, or Pats fans of ‘01 Rams, or (gasp) Giants fans thought of ‘07 Pats.All fair points. As a UConn fan it's obviously it's fun to think that the Duke team was really good, because it makes the win seem more impressive. I remember going into the game thinking that people were treating it too much like a foregone conclusion. I definitely thought Duke would probably win, but the way that they were talking about it seemed a bit disproportionate. UConn had some really good wins that year, including an absolute dismantling of a really good St. John's team in the big east final. It definitely felt like one of those years where one of the two teams was going to be one of the best college teams to not have won the championship.
I remember a couple of those but the last one is unfamiliar to me.You should think of that Duke team as being awesome. It’s the same as what Duke fans thought of ‘91 UNLV, or Pats fans of ‘01 Rams, or (gasp) Giants fans thought of ‘07 Pats.
Yeah that’s the point though, we have all felt these from both sides.I remember a couple of those but the last one is unfamiliar to me.