Rank UConn's Final 4 games

[freescooter]

That's crazy. They make two final fours in a row and you're labeling it a mid-major rule that they'll collapse when matched up against elite schools? And this diminishes UConn's win. Meanwhile in those two years Butler beat Syracuse, Pitt, MState and Florida and gave Duke a great game?! Butler was a great team in 2010 and a very good team in 2011 (Beat majors #4 Pitt, #16 Wisconsin, #13 Florida). Atypical of your mid-major rule. And you can't argue that VCU in semifinal was a mid-major break since that school has had staying power in NCAAs immediately after beating good teams and losing to very highly ranked teams (+ the coach you would have picked over Kevin Ollie). And one of these days a mid-major is going to win a national championship.

Ok, we see things differently. That's fine. I think 2011 was a very strange year. There were no dominant teams and really not too many very good ones. That doesn't diminish UConn's accomplishment in the least. They and 67 others all had a fair shot and UConn won. The other 67 didn't. I think, and you seem to agree that 2011 Butler wasn't as good as 2010 Butler. What proves my point I would argue is the fact that the 2011 Final 4 was unusual. It had an 11 seed, an 8 seed, a 4 seed and a 3 seed. Compare that with 2010, 1,2,5,5 or 2012 with 1,4,2,2. Even this year has Florida, a 1, and #2 Wisconsin to go along with #7 UConn and #8 Kentucky. I haven't gone back and checked, but I think it was one of only a few times without at least a 1 or 2 seed . I think, but could be corrected that there have only been 3 Final Fours in the 64 team era when at least one #1 has not been included. I also think that 2011 was the only time in the 64 team era that neither a 1 nor a 2 seed got to the Final Four. Bottom line is that 2011 was an outlier. A whole bunch of better than usual mid-majors and a whole bunch of not as good as usual majors. Add the oddity of 2 mid-majors in the semi-final and 1 of them had to get to the finals. that, too usually doesn't happen. They were the 2 highest seeds to play each other in the semis in the 64 team era.

 

[champs99and04]

Ok, we see things differently. That's fine. I think 2011 was a very strange year. There were no dominant teams and really not too many very good ones. That doesn't diminish UConn's accomplishment in the least. They and 67 others all had a fair shot and UConn won. The other 67 didn't. I think, and you seem to agree that 2011 Butler wasn't as good as 2010 Butler. What proves my point I would argue is the fact that the 2011 Final 4 was unusual. It had an 11 seed, an 8 seed, a 4 seed and a 3 seed. Compare that with 2010, 1,2,5,5 or 2012 with 1,4,2,2. Even this year has Florida, a 1, and #2 Wisconsin to go along with #7 UConn and #8 Kentucky. I haven't gone back and checked, but I think it was one of only a few times without at least a 1 or 2 seed . I think, but could be corrected that there have only been 3 Final Fours in the 64 team era when at least one #1 has not been included. I also think that 2011 was the only time in the 64 team era that neither a 1 nor a 2 seed got to the Final Four. Bottom line is that 2011 was an outlier. A whole bunch of better than usual mid-majors and a whole bunch of not as good as usual majors. Add the oddity of 2 mid-majors in the semi-final and 1 of them had to get to the finals. that, too usually doesn't happen. They were the 2 highest seeds to play each other in the semis in the 64 team era.

You're dancing around the point being made. If 2011 was an outlier, fine, but that doesn't explain 2010, when Butler was literally a couple inches away from winning a national title, or 2013, when Wichita State had the eventual champs on the ropes for virtually the entire second half.

Nobody thought Butler was over-matched going into the national title game. Nobody. I'm fairly certain they were only 2 or 3 point dogs in Vegas, and plenty of talking heads were picking them to avenge their loss from the year prior. You could call them a cinderella or a mid-major, but they really weren't. As others have mentioned, they beat Syracuse (#1 seed), Kansas State (#2 seed), Michigan State (#5 seed), Pittsburgh (#1 seed), Wisconsin (#4 seed, I think), and Florida (#2 seed) within a two year span. Hell, even a lot of people on this board, including myself, were scared to death Butler had one more in them. Personally speaking, I was a lot more confident heading into the 2014 national championship against perennial powerhouse Kentucky than I was playing that Butler team.

 

[champs99and04]

The stretch without a whistle was something I don't think I've ever seen in a game of this magnitude and made it unique. The teams went through a long, scoreless draught where no one had legs and next point (especially if it was ours) might be the moment that decides the game. What a shock that the one player of ten who came up with the mental will to get to the rack and get fouled was Kemba.

That, along with the fact that this game, while the national semifinal, was clearly for the championship (as opposed to MSU '09 where we were playing for second place) puts this #3 on the list behind just the two Duke games.

This might be the stretch you were talking about (starting at about 7:30 in the video):

You can tell everybody on the court is pretty much dead at this point. Knight puts up a wild shot (credit to Oriakhi for the great contest), then Kemba comes away with the outlet pass and just explodes to the basket, forcing Cal to take a timeout. You could tell how winded Kentucky was because I'm pretty sure three of their players didn't even make it past half-court.

 

[Inyatkin]

This might be the stretch you were talking about (starting at about 7:30 in the video):

You can tell everybody on the court is pretty much dead at this point. Knight puts up a wild shot (credit to Oriakhi for the great contest), then Kemba comes away with the outlet pass and just explodes to the basket, forcing Cal to take a timeout. You could tell how winded Kentucky was because I'm pretty sure three of their players didn't even make it past half-court.

That Coach Cal, what a play he drew up to end that game -- give it to DeAndre Liggins to launch a 25-footer on the biggest possession of the season.
How is it people question his in-game coaching, again?

 

[freescooter]

You're dancing around the point being made. If 2011 was an outlier, fine, but that doesn't explain 2010, when Butler was literally a couple inches away from winning a national title, or 2013, when Wichita State had the eventual champs on the ropes for virtually the entire second half.

Nobody thought Butler was over-matched going into the national title game. Nobody. I'm fairly certain they were only 2 or 3 point dogs in Vegas, and plenty of talking heads were picking them to avenge their loss from the year prior. You could call them a cinderella or a mid-major, but they really weren't. As others have mentioned, they beat Syracuse (#1 seed), Kansas State (#2 seed), Michigan State (#5 seed), Pittsburgh (#1 seed), Wisconsin (#4 seed, I think), and Florida (#2 seed) within a two year span. Hell, even a lot of people on this board, including myself, were scared to death Butler had one more in them. Personally speaking, I was a lot more confident heading into the 2014 national championship against perennial powerhouse Kentucky than I was playing that Butler team.

First of all, if you were more concerned with beating Butler than Kentucky, you just got caught up in the Butler hype. Butler was a very good team in 2010. A 5 seed and 5 seeds make the final 4 reasonably often. The odds are about 7% which is way better than the odds of making it as an 8 (<1%). But we're not talking about 2010, we were discussing UConn's victory in 2011. But At that point Butler was one of those odd-ball mid-majors that got hot. UConn was a major that got hot. Despite the silliness in the media hype that got you--I remember one comparison by position that gave Butler the advantage in coaching, Something to the effect that Calhoun was past his prime and Stevens was the "new breed of young genius,"-- that's how silly it became--when it came down to it, UConn was a better team. Simple. A mid-major on a roll eventually runs up against a major program that has too much talent and plays to its level. That's what happened. If we replayed that game 100 times, I have no doubt that UConn wins 85. 2011 was a very strange year in college basketball.

But I have one question for you. Since when did a mid-major beating Syracuse in the NCAA tournament indicate anything?