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.
NCAA Basketball Final Four Game Thread
- Thread starter Ale Xander
- Start date
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.
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.
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 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.
Consider UConn's round by round tournament record in its history. They don't have a losing record in any round of the tournament.
The question asked was comparing to Duke, so when it comes to overall tournament performance I don't think you can say that they are equals since Duke is pretty much the standard unless you pick the UCLA dominant years. But if you view UConn as a whole from 1990 to 2023, it's hard to imagine any sense in which "boom or bust" would be accurate, other than perhaps answering a specific question about comparing to Duke. And I think this is true whether or not you include the down years in the recent decade. It's a crazy amazing resume by pretty much any yardstick.
I'll start with the roster. Here is their rotation / top 8:
PG Will Avery
SG Trajan Langdon
F Chris Carrawell
F Shane Battier
C Elton Brand
--
F Corey Maggette
F Chris Burgess
G Nate James
I believe all of the starters were lotto picks, or at least first rounders. Maggette was also a lotto pick. I think Brand was national player of the year. Battier, two years later, was national player of the year. Carrawell was the ACC player of the year the following year. Chris Burgess was a super high recruit. Nate James was a very good college player. Langdon didn't have the athleticism to be a good pro, but he was as good of a college shooter that has ever played. Talent-wise, this team was just loaded.
Then, you get to the schedule. They lost their 6th game of the year, 77-75, to Cincinnati in the Great Alaskan Shootout. I believe Cincinnati won it with a bucket at the very end of the game.
They then ripped off 32 straight wins. Of their 37 wins on the season:
- 33 were by 10+
- 31 were by 15+
- 24 were by 20+
- 19 were by 25+
- 15 were by 30+
- 8 were by 40+
They were just a completely dominant team. We don't have kenpom, unfortunately, to help us see the metrics. But the combination of talent and performance leads me to think they were better than, say, UNLV.
FWIW, comparing 1999 Duke to 1996 Kentucky, for example....
National Rankings:
Record: Duke 37-2, Kentucky 34-2, Duke lost the national championship, Kentucky won the national championship
FG%: Duke #2 (.514), Kentucky #14 (.487)
3ptFG%: Duke #7 (.396), Kentucky #12 (.397)
FT%: Duke #76 (.705), Kentucky #43 (.713)
Rebounds: Duke #15 (42.2), Kentucky #15 (41.7)
Assists: Duke #33 (16.2), Kentucky #1 (21.8)
Steals: Duke #70 (8.9), Kentucky #2 (12.1)
Blocks: Duke #7 (6.3), Kentucky #30 (4.9)
Turnovers: Duke #242 (14.7), Kentucky #164 (15.4)
Opp FG%: Duke #19 (.391), Kentucky #58 (.415)
Opp 3ptFG%: Duke #16 (.301), Kentucky #132 (.336)
Opp Rebounds: Duke #55 (33.4), Kentucky #137 (35.8)
Points for: Duke #1 (91.8), Kentucky #2 (91.4)
Points against: Duke #110 (67.2), Kentucky #111 (69.4)
So all that is pretty close. Then look at the rosters. Here were Duke's best players:
Elton Brand - 17.7 points, 9.8 rebounds, drafted #1 overall in 1999
Shane Battier - 9.1 points, 4.9 rebounds, drafted #6 overall in 2001
Trajan Langdon - 17.3 points, .441 from three, drafted #11 overall in 1999
William Avery - 14.9 points, 5.0 assists, drafted #14 overall in 1999
Corey Maggette - 10.6 points, 3.9 rebounds, drafted #13 overall in 1999
Chris Carrawell - 9.9 points, 4.8 rebounds, drafted #41 overall in 2000
Here were Kentucky's best players:
Antoine Walker - 15.2 points, 8.4 rebounds - drafted #6 overall in 1996
Tony Delk - 17.8 points, .443 from three - drafted #16 overall in 1996
Walter McCarty - 11.3 points, 5.7 rebounds - drafted #19 overall in 1996
Derek Anderson - 9.4 points, 3.4 rebounds - drafted #13 overall in 1997
Ron Mercer - 8.0 points, 2.9 rebounds - drafted #6 overall in 1997
Mark Pope - 7.6 points, 5.2 rebounds - drafted #52 overall in 1996
They also had Nazr Mohammed (bench guy that year) who was drafted #29 overall in 1998.
So Duke had five 1st round picks on their 1999 squad. Kentucky had six 1st round picks on their 1996 squad.
Both teams were coached by all time greats.
Both teams were all-time awesome, but I'd say the Kentucky team was better - slightly better talent, the metrics are pretty even, and of course, they finished the job and won the national title. But yeah, that Duke team was loaded for sure.
But an argument can be made, of course, that that UConn team was actually better. Not only did UConn actually beat them, but they were also a #1 seed, 34-2, had a number of NBA guys, and the best player on that team went on to have a better NBA career than anyone on that Duke team (Rip Hamilton). Though Brand maybe had a better career.
And that UConn team had two losses - one to Syracuse when UConn had some key players injured, and the other a two-point loss to #15 Miami. That's it. They had 12 wins against top 25 opponents, including winning the Big East over #10 St. Johns by 19 points, beating #4 Stanford by 11, and beating four top-25 teams in that year's NCAA tournament (#25 New Mexico, #21 Iowa, #14 Ohio State, and of course, #1 Duke).
I think if they play 10 times, Duke beats that UConn team 6 out of 10, maybe 7, so I do think Duke was ultimately better. But I don't know that that Duke team beats 1996 Kentucky more than 4 times out of 10.
Anyway, really close.
National Rankings:
Record: Duke 37-2, Kentucky 34-2, Duke lost the national championship, Kentucky won the national championship
FG%: Duke #2 (.514), Kentucky #14 (.487)
3ptFG%: Duke #7 (.396), Kentucky #12 (.397)
FT%: Duke #76 (.705), Kentucky #43 (.713)
Rebounds: Duke #15 (42.2), Kentucky #15 (41.7)
Assists: Duke #33 (16.2), Kentucky #1 (21.8)
Steals: Duke #70 (8.9), Kentucky #2 (12.1)
Blocks: Duke #7 (6.3), Kentucky #30 (4.9)
Turnovers: Duke #242 (14.7), Kentucky #164 (15.4)
Opp FG%: Duke #19 (.391), Kentucky #58 (.415)
Opp 3ptFG%: Duke #16 (.301), Kentucky #132 (.336)
Opp Rebounds: Duke #55 (33.4), Kentucky #137 (35.8)
Points for: Duke #1 (91.8), Kentucky #2 (91.4)
Points against: Duke #110 (67.2), Kentucky #111 (69.4)
So all that is pretty close. Then look at the rosters. Here were Duke's best players:
Elton Brand - 17.7 points, 9.8 rebounds, drafted #1 overall in 1999
Shane Battier - 9.1 points, 4.9 rebounds, drafted #6 overall in 2001
Trajan Langdon - 17.3 points, .441 from three, drafted #11 overall in 1999
William Avery - 14.9 points, 5.0 assists, drafted #14 overall in 1999
Corey Maggette - 10.6 points, 3.9 rebounds, drafted #13 overall in 1999
Chris Carrawell - 9.9 points, 4.8 rebounds, drafted #41 overall in 2000
Here were Kentucky's best players:
Antoine Walker - 15.2 points, 8.4 rebounds - drafted #6 overall in 1996
Tony Delk - 17.8 points, .443 from three - drafted #16 overall in 1996
Walter McCarty - 11.3 points, 5.7 rebounds - drafted #19 overall in 1996
Derek Anderson - 9.4 points, 3.4 rebounds - drafted #13 overall in 1997
Ron Mercer - 8.0 points, 2.9 rebounds - drafted #6 overall in 1997
Mark Pope - 7.6 points, 5.2 rebounds - drafted #52 overall in 1996
They also had Nazr Mohammed (bench guy that year) who was drafted #29 overall in 1998.
So Duke had five 1st round picks on their 1999 squad. Kentucky had six 1st round picks on their 1996 squad.
Both teams were coached by all time greats.
Both teams were all-time awesome, but I'd say the Kentucky team was better - slightly better talent, the metrics are pretty even, and of course, they finished the job and won the national title. But yeah, that Duke team was loaded for sure.
But an argument can be made, of course, that that UConn team was actually better. Not only did UConn actually beat them, but they were also a #1 seed, 34-2, had a number of NBA guys, and the best player on that team went on to have a better NBA career than anyone on that Duke team (Rip Hamilton). Though Brand maybe had a better career.
And that UConn team had two losses - one to Syracuse when UConn had some key players injured, and the other a two-point loss to #15 Miami. That's it. They had 12 wins against top 25 opponents, including winning the Big East over #10 St. Johns by 19 points, beating #4 Stanford by 11, and beating four top-25 teams in that year's NCAA tournament (#25 New Mexico, #21 Iowa, #14 Ohio State, and of course, #1 Duke).
I think if they play 10 times, Duke beats that UConn team 6 out of 10, maybe 7, so I do think Duke was ultimately better. But I don't know that that Duke team beats 1996 Kentucky more than 4 times out of 10.
Anyway, really close.
I'm sure you'll disagree but UConn was the better team. They only lost 2 games one without Rip and Voskuhl playing.
Looks like viewership was down just a bit this year. I know I watched until the UConn victory became inevitable.
Sportico
@Sportico
The UConn v. San Diego State drew in 14.69 million viewers on CBS It the least-watched men’s championship game in recorded history, 14% less than last year's final
Sportico
@Sportico
The UConn v. San Diego State drew in 14.69 million viewers on CBS It the least-watched men’s championship game in recorded history, 14% less than last year's final
There's no argument they were better that one night, which is all that really counts. How many they win out of a theoretical 10 or 100 games, I dunno. I've just never seen a machine like that Duke team.
@BaseballJones mentioned UConn's top 25 wins, 12 of them. Duke only 9 had that year. But 7 of those 9 were against top 10 teams. They beat Michigan State twice, they beat Maryland twice (ranked 4th and 7th for those games) with an average margin of 18, they beat UNC 3x (ranked 10th, 14th, and 15th for those games), all 3 of those wins by 10+ with an average margin of 18... basically they just destroyed teams all year.
Whereas UConn had 11 of their 34 wins by <10 points (vs. only 4 for Duke) and only 14 of their 34 wins by 20+ points (vs. Duke's 24 wins by 20+ points).
@BaseballJones mentioned UConn's top 25 wins, 12 of them. Duke only 9 had that year. But 7 of those 9 were against top 10 teams. They beat Michigan State twice, they beat Maryland twice (ranked 4th and 7th for those games) with an average margin of 18, they beat UNC 3x (ranked 10th, 14th, and 15th for those games), all 3 of those wins by 10+ with an average margin of 18... basically they just destroyed teams all year.
Whereas UConn had 11 of their 34 wins by <10 points (vs. only 4 for Duke) and only 14 of their 34 wins by 20+ points (vs. Duke's 24 wins by 20+ points).
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.