Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="gsmooth, post: 3120491, member: 9355"] Yeah, I am not sure how he is ranking these teams. That's a good point, the 04 team really only lost 2-3 (later edit) games with a healthy OK4 (definitely not the 6 games). Also, the 99 team really didn't lose any games at full strength, maybe the Miami game, but I remember they were really injured for that game. I remember even fans, not UConn fans, in 2004 penciled them in as champs before filling out the rest of the bracket. I think you have to rank how the teams do in the NCAA tourney and how comfortably they win against the level of competition in each round. And look at how high seeded your team was, too (shows how dominant the team was throughout the year). Did they win their 1) conference regular season and 2) did they win their conference tourney, 3) how strong was their schedule? That's why the 99 and 04 were considered so good because they were #1 and #2 seeds (even in 04 they would've been #1 but Stanford and St. Joe's were undefeated after 20+ games) and were great from the beginning of the year all the way to the end. It didn't matter who won or lost games in their brackets-they didn't really have to fear an opponent matching up well with them. This is why I think so highly of the 1999 UConn, 2004 UConn, 2007 Florida, 2009 Carolina (2005 Carolina to a certain extent), 2012 Kentucky team, and the Nova 2018 team. These teams would beat the other champs and Final Four participants in the 2000s, IMO. These teams were ranked too low,(Nova's was criminal). [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach