“People tend to forget how good the UConn Men's Basketball team has been the last quarter century.“ | Page 3 | The Boneyard

“People tend to forget how good the UConn Men's Basketball team has been the last quarter century.“

RoderickSpode said:
On paper, sure. But they probably would have lost to ‘09, ‘11 and ‘14 in March because ‘06 never really showed up when it counted.
Expand ...

Maybe I should have said "every bit as talented."

Plus, I'm partial because I was going to UConn then and those guys were classmates.
 
MattMang23 said:
Maybe I should have said "every bit as talented."

Plus, I'm partial because I was going to UConn then and those guys were classmates.
Expand ...

I’m class of ‘06 myself (not at UConn, went out of state) so I totally get it.

I so badly wanted those guys to finish out that era with another title but they really lacked two things: another ballhandler (were so close to having that with AJ) and a killer instinct. Laptopgate doomed that team, unfortunately.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
The only thing I would add is some way to account for regular season performance. Tourney success alone isn't the mark of a program that's relevant in the minds of fans.

You could award a point for #1 or #2 seeds in the post-1985 era to account for teams that were relevant and title contenders throughout the year, regardless of their actual Tournament performance. That would probably bump up Kansas, and I think would boost us a bit also.
Expand ...
Fair enough. Let's add 1 point for each #1 seed (seeding was started in 79 w/Bird-Magic, so I'm okay bending my pre-1985 rule).

Only accounting for the teams I have listed (Virginia, for instance, has 6, more than a number on that list):

#1 Seeds
  1. UNC: 16
  2. Kansas: 14
  3. Duke: 13
  4. Kentucky: 12
  5. Arizona: 6
  6. UConn: 5
  7. Michigan State: 5
  8. Ohio State: 4
  9. UCLA: 4
  10. Villanova: 4
  11. Indiana: 3
  12. Louisville: 3
  13. Syracuse: 3
  14. Florida: 2
  15. Michigan: 2
Revised Totals
  1. UNC: 67
  2. Duke: 61
  3. Kentucky: 59
  4. UCLA: 50
  5. Kansas: 48
  6. UConn: 31
  7. Michigan State: 27
  8. Louisville: 27
  9. Indiana: 22
  10. Villanova: 22
  11. Florida: 20
  12. Ohio State: 20
  13. Michigan: 19
  14. Arizona: 18
  15. Syracuse: 18
  16. NC State: 8
  17. Cincinnati: 7
 
The idea that we have to “remember” how good we’ve been in the past quarter century is not comforting right now. It’s saying we’re crap right now but let’s not forget that we’ve been great. Don’t think anyone is denying it but with the recent horror show it’s tough for media to throw sunshine our way. never forget what we did but the headline I wish to see is “the blue blood UCONN Huskies are back”.
 
Hoophound said:
I respectfully disagree. That 09’ team was motoring. I agree with Biz on 99 though, that is my favorite UConn title team and they were tough as nails. I always side with the 99’ camp as our best team.

However, we have never looked better than 08-09’ up until the Dyson injury. I can’t say for sure they would have won a title but they were amazing and were scoring from everywhere on the floor. Unlike other great UConn teams, they were making it look easy every night. As I said, it was beautiful basketball. It was pretty. We didn’t have to grind it out, we just rolled.
Expand ...

I mean, 2004 had way more talent up and down the roster, and when Okafor's back was healthy, were definitely better.

Maybe their comp was better idk. Although, if Okafor hadn't gotten called for cheap fouls against Duke, I think they would have rolled their too.

09 didn't have an elite player. Thabeet was absolutely elite on D, one of the best ever, but not so much on the offensive end.

EDIT: I see all this was already covered. carry on.
 
2004 just couldn't get their ish together until the tournament. It was such a chaotic year.
  • Charlie V's eligibility
  • Marcus Williams's academic ineligibility
  • Okafor's back
  • Gordon's broken nose
Still, that team had four future lottery picks and six 1st rounders plus Rashad, arguably the best shooter and most clutch player we've ever had. Tack on good college players like Taliek and Denham; that team was unfair. IMO, the peak of UConn basketball was the Gampel game against Top 10 Oklahoma. We were up 40 at one point IIRC. We nearly beat Cuse by 30 that year. That team had absolutely everything: great shooters, an ideal pass-first PG, great interior defense, rebounding, post scoring, depth, etc. A second ballhandler and FT shooting were the only blemishes.

If we had lost that Final Four game to Duke, it would have been the most difficult loss this program ever had to swallow. Those two phantom fouls against Okafor, they still piss me off all this years later even though we won the game. We were up, what, 18-4 to start that game? I wanted Duke all year long and we finally got them; we were 15 points better than them IMO. I would have been ill if we lost that game.
 
intlzncster said:
I mean, 2004 had way more talent up and down the roster, and when Okafor's back was healthy, were definitely better.

Maybe their comp was better idk. Although, if Okafor hadn't gotten called for cheap fouls against Duke, I think they would have rolled their too.

09 didn't have an elite player. Thabeet was absolutely elite on D, one of the best ever, but not so much on the offensive end.

EDIT: I see all this was already covered. carry on.
Expand ...

Throughout the 2009 season, I was never certain we were the best team in the country. UNC was considered better by most folks; I don't think it's a given we beat them even with Dyson.

In 2004, wire-to-wire I felt we were by far the best team in the country when we were healthy. It was the only season in UConn history I felt that way. There had to be a fluke for us to not win it all. Nearly happened thanks to those boneheaded refs in the Duke game.
 
jleves said:
I think you would have better off going with Indiana. Since winning it all in 87, they have been to two final fours. UCLA won it in 95 and have been to 3 final fours since then. I like the idea of giving programs 1 point for a final four, 2 more for a final 2 and 4 more for a championship. Using that criteria, here's what you get:
UCLA 88
Kentucky 73
UNC 66
Duke 58
Kansas 45
Indiana 40
^ End of the blue bloods
then you have:
UConn 29
Ohio St 24
Mich St 23
Louisville 20
Cincy 20
Oklahoma St 20

Pretty clear separation between the blue bloods and not blue bloods. UConn needs at least 4 more final fours and a championship to be considered one.
Expand ...


Recalculate for the 64 team era. You are including segregation era and small field teams. If you want to start with the Alcindor UCLA teams that is fine, if only as a bone to the WBB fans.
 
Lefty2one said:
Throughout the 2009 season, I was never certain we were the best team in the country. UNC was considered better by most folks; I don't think it's a given we beat them even with Dyson.

In 2004, wire-to-wire I felt we were by far the best team in the country when we were healthy. It was the only season in UConn history I felt that way. There had to be a fluke for us to not win it all. Nearly happened thanks to those boneheaded refs in the Duke game.
Expand ...


Also the best in 99 and 06 and 96. Probably 95 too.
 
SubbaBub said:
Recalculate for the 64 team era. You are including segregation era and small field teams. If you want to start with the Alcindor UCLA teams that is fine, if only as a bone to the WBB fans.
Expand ...
Um, someone did. :)
 
SubbaBub said:
Also the best in 99 and 06 and 96. Probably 95 too.
Expand ...
That Kentucky team smoked most people. Even if we were healthy, no guarantee they win that.

Also, that UCLA team had 2 losses all year. You might be able to argue we deserved a #1 seed over Wake (5 losses) or Kansas (5 losses)...but Kansas whooped us by 29 and we got spanked twice by Villanova. Hard to argue they were clearly the best team when they had a 20+ point home loss and a near 30 point loss to another very good team
 
SubbaBub said:
Also the best in 99 and 06 and 96. Probably 95 too.
Expand ...

I don't think you can say we were by far the best team in any of those seasons. Didn't Calhoun say we'd have lost to '99 Duke 7 times out of 10 or something along those lines? He talked about it in one of his books.

'96 UK was better than us (doesn't mean we couldn't have beat them in the tournament) and our '95 team gets a little overrated by our fanbase IMO - see the reasons tzznandrew mentioned. Those teams were great but weren't unquestionably the best team in America. Our 2004 squad was 'efff you" good.
 
Lefty2one said:
I don't think you can say we were by far the best team in any of those seasons. Didn't Calhoun say we'd have lost to '99 Duke 7 times out of 10 or something along those lines? He talked about it in one of his books.

'96 UK was better than us (doesn't mean we couldn't have beat them in the tournament) and our '95 team gets a little overrated by our fanbase IMO - see the reasons tzznandrew mentioned. Those teams were great but weren't unquestionably the best team in America. Our 2004 squad was 'efff you" good.
Expand ...
I think 99 was the best team in the country. They performed the same or better than Duke against common opponents. If JC said that, it was because he was being generous, but they weren't unquestionably better: that Duke team was a freaking fantastic. Probably the second best team not to win a title (behind 1991 UNLV).
 
Lefty2one said:
2004 just couldn't get their ish together until the tournament.
Expand ...

I would say got they cooking before that. They won the Big East Tournament without Emeka. And they only lost one game after President's Day.
 
Last edited:
tzznandrew said:
I think 99 was the best team in the country. They performed the same or better than Duke against common opponents. If JC said that, it was because he was being generous, but they weren't unquestionably better: that Duke team was a freaking fantastic.
Expand ...

The way I saw it, the Alaskan Assassin had to shoot out of his mind to keep it close. And Rip shot below 50%. We beat them with our A- game.
 
tzznandrew said:
Fair enough. Let's add 1 point for each #1 seed (seeding was started in 79 w/Bird-Magic, so I'm okay bending my pre-1985 rule).

Only accounting for the teams I have listed (Virginia, for instance, has 6, more than a number on that list):

#1 Seeds
  1. UNC: 16
  2. Kansas: 14
  3. Duke: 13
  4. Kentucky: 12
  5. Arizona: 6
  6. UConn: 5
  7. Michigan State: 5
  8. Ohio State: 4
  9. UCLA: 4
  10. Villanova: 4
  11. Indiana: 3
  12. Louisville: 3
  13. Syracuse: 3
  14. Florida: 2
  15. Michigan: 2
Revised Totals
  1. UNC: 67
  2. Duke: 61
  3. Kentucky: 59
  4. UCLA: 50
  5. Kansas: 48
  6. UConn: 31
  7. Michigan State: 27
  8. Louisville: 27
  9. Indiana: 22
  10. Villanova: 22
  11. Florida: 20
  12. Ohio State: 20
  13. Michigan: 19
  14. Arizona: 18
  15. Syracuse: 18
  16. NC State: 8
  17. Cincinnati: 7
Expand ...
I feel like tonight puts Villanova uncomfortably close, no?
 
The Answer is Kansas, Villanova, Arizona, Florida, Michigan , Ohio State, Notre Dame and Micigan State.

The question was: Programs with less National Championships then UConn.

Just saying. Not a blue blood my ass, just cuz we had 3 bad years, we will be back!!!
 
TheChamps990411 said:
Not saying theyre on our level but they have made numerous F4 appearances with a title in the "new era".
Expand ...
The original quote was multiple natties. That ain't 'cuse. At most they can claim like .37 of a natty due to the asterisk.
 
Coach J said:
The Answer is Kansas, Villanova, Arizona, Florida, Michigan , Ohio State, Notre Dame and Micigan State.

The question was: Programs with less National Championships then UConn.
Expand ...
QS23ZwG.jpg
 

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
1,922
Total visitors
2,142
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,142
Messages
4,384,558
Members
10,185
Latest member
aacgoast


.
..
Top Bottom