If UCONN wins it all..

[MrBug708]

...do they replace Duke as the face of college basketball in the modern era?

[Joe]

nope

[McSweeny]

they already have

duke who?

[st.cronin]

I think you mean UW-Milwaukee.

[ScottVib]

No. But it will further emphasize the tremendous job Calhoun has done in building the UConn program, perhaps the greatest job building a program in recent memory.

[Young Drachma]

Maybe the UConn women. ;)

[KWhit]

No.

[lynchjm24]

...do they replace Duke as the face of college basketball in the modern era?


They would probably be the top program, but don't let ACC Billy and Duke Vitale know.

[TredWel]

Nope. It's when Calhoun starts doing AmEx commercials.

[Schmidty]

No.

MSU is the team of the new century. Especially if they get the Final Four yet again (5 of 8 in the past 8 years).

Seriously though, I think UConn is awesome, and I think they're a top 5 program, but I don't think they are discernably higher than Duke, MSU, UNC, etc.

[GreenMonster]

No.

MSU is the team of the new century. Especially if they get the Final Four yet again (5 of 8 in the past 8 years).

Seriously though, I think UConn is awesome, and I think they're a top 5 program, but I don't think they are discernably higher than Duke, MSU, UNC, etc.


In the last 10 years only Duke has a better record (barely).. Uconn has won 2 titles in the last 10 years, Duke 1.. For the last 10 years it has been all Duke and Uconn, MSU has had some runs but only 1 big win, UNC has done nothing till the Roy Williams and after vince, jerry, etc...

[MrBug708]

Tom Izzo has done a good job, and while I think he's one of the Top 5 coache sin America, I dont think MSU is one of the Top 5 programs at this point.

[Schmidty]

Tom Izzo has done a good job, and while I think he's one of the Top 5 coache sin America, I dont think MSU is one of the Top 5 programs at this point.

I was being slightly sarcastic about MSU being the best. I would love to hear your top 5 and your reasoning.

I think that there is absolutely NO way that you couldn't include MSU in the current top 5 best college basketball programs. Take all night, but I still think you'll be reaching heavily if you exclude them if you look at the numbers, especially if you look at the numbers in March.

[Schmidty]

Tom Izzo has done a good job, and while I think he's one of the Top 5 coache sin America, I dont think MSU is one of the Top 5 programs at this point.

I was being slightly sarcastic about MSU being the best. I would love to hear your top 5 and your reasoning.

I think that there is absolutely NO way that you couldn't include MSU in the current top 5 best college basketball programs. Take all night, but I still think you'll be reaching heavily if you exclude them if you look at the numbers, especially if you look at the numbers in march.

[Radii]

UNC has done nothing till the Roy Williams and after vince, jerry, etc...


That's a pretty short sighted view. It is pretty cool that two final fours and 1 national title in 7 years(Vince left UNC after the 1998 season, so 1999 through 2005) carries negative implications.

If UConn wins this year it'll be an incredibly impressive achievement, and if nothing else, they're great finishers.

But, IMO, UNC is in a better position to topple Duke as the face of college basketball. UConn needs another 10 years or making the final four every other year, or another title or two after this one. Not to take away from UConn at all, if they did win it this year, 3 titles in 7 years is awesomely impressive, but in terms of what'll be remembered as the best program out there, I think the runs that Duke/UNC have been putting on since the mid 80s, and the run that Michigan State started in the late 90s, are more impressive at this point.

[MrBug708]

I was being slightly sarcastic about MSU being the best. I would love to hear your top 5 and your reasoning.

I think that there is absolutely NO way that you couldn't include MSU in the current top 5 best college basketball programs. Take all night, but I still think you'll be reaching heavily if you exclude them if you look at the numbers, especially if you look at the numbers in march.

Well, what is your criteria? Strickly going off of how they do in the tournament? I think MSU gets great result when it counts, but Izzo, for all of his coaching ability, doesnt seem to bring in great classes when he recruits. But if we go only off of how far n the tournament, you would have to give UCLA as point to being a greta program under Lavin because of all of the Sweet 16 appearancesand we all know Lavin sucks as a coach.

[stevew]

What if Uconn wins it all, and then Duke Wins next year, and then UNC wins like 4 in a row after that? What happens then?

[Schmidty]

Well, what is your criteria? Strickly going off of how they do in the tournament? I think MSU gets great result when it counts, but Izzo, for all of his coaching ability, doesnt seem to bring in great classes when he recruits. But if we go only off of how far n the tournament, you would have to give UCLA as point to being a greta program under Lavin because of all of the Sweet 16 appearancesand we all know Lavin sucks as a coach.

Dude, I'm not trying to be mean (for once), but you can't be serious in comparing UCLA and MSU in the past 6-7 years or so. You say that State hasn't recruited well, yet they still produce. Isn't that what counts? Rivals.com's rankings of juniors in HS means jack shit. What matters is how those punks play on the court.

Anyway, I don't mind people cutting MSU short. I, and they, thrive on that stuff.

[MrBug708]

I dont believe that I compared the two, but during Steve Lavin's tenure at UCLA, they compared UCLA and Duke's program because UCLA went to Sweet 16's 5 of the 6 years including an elite 8. Like I said, I consider Tom Izzo a great coach, but great coaches dont always find themselves at top programs. Is MSU a Top 10 program, but how many times have they won the regular season title?

[Schmidty]

I dont believe that I compared the two, but during Steve Lavin's tenure at UCLA, they compared UCLA and Duke's program because UCLA went to Sweet 16's 5 of the 6 years including an elite 8. Like I said, I consider Tom Izzo a great coach, but great coaches dont always find themselves at top programs. Is MSU a Top 10 program, but how many times have they won the regular season title?

That's all well and good, but who remembers regular season titles? They are great, and teams shoot for them, but as far as history is concerned, the only thing that matters is the NCAAs. Izzo has the most wins, and the best % other than kzcerchhhxkyjsjjsdsd in the past 8 years.

Anyway, I like people to hate us.

[Schmidty]

Not that you do. :)

[Radii]

What if Uconn wins it all, and then Duke Wins next year, and then UNC wins like 4 in a row after that? What happens then?

Then I can die happy? :)

[Radii]

as far as history is concerned, the only thing that matters is the NCAAs.

I honestly thing it goes a step past that. As far as history is concerned, the only thing that matters is Final Fours. That's my point about UConn earlier. As impressive as 3 titles in 7 years would be, it'd also be 3 final four appearances in the last 25 years. 3 titles in 7 years is more impressive than anything Duke or UNC has done in terms of winning titles, but as far as the "face of college basketball", I don't think its enough. In the last 25 years, Duke has 3 national titles and 10 final fours. In the last 25 years, North Carolina has 3 national titles and 8 final fours. Georgetown had an incredible run for a few years in the early 80s. Kentucky had a great stretch in the mid 90s. Michigan State has been awesome for about 8 years now. UConn has had two great national titles in the last 6 years. But Duke and North Carolina are *always* there. that's why I said what I said above, and why I said Michigan State has the best chance outside of Duke/UNC to reach that level.

UCLA has the Wooden/60s and 70s argument, and its a legit argument that always ends up coming down to which team people like more, but UCLA is a second or third tier team in the modern era IMO in this discussion.

[TroyF]

I honestly thing it goes a step past that. As far as history is concerned, the only thing that matters is Final Fours. That's my point about UConn earlier. As impressive as 3 titles in 7 years would be, it'd also be 3 final four appearances in the last 25 years. 3 titles in 7 years is more impressive than anything Duke or UNC has done in terms of winning titles, but as far as the "face of college basketball", I don't think its enough. In the last 25 years, Duke has 3 national titles and 10 final fours. In the last 25 years, North Carolina has 3 national titles and 8 final fours. Georgetown had an incredible run for a few years in the early 80s. Kentucky had a great stretch in the mid 90s. Michigan State has been awesome for about 8 years now. UConn has had two great national titles in the last 6 years. But Duke and North Carolina are *always* there. that's why I said what I said above, and why I said Michigan State has the best chance outside of Duke/UNC to reach that level.

UCLA has the Wooden/60s and 70s argument, and its a legit argument that always ends up coming down to which team people like more, but UCLA is a second or third tier team in the modern era IMO in this discussion.


Well, when we start talking history, no way UConn can match up with Duke or NC. Then again, nobody could match up with UCLA or Kentucky if history is the way we want to go.

Assuming UCONN wins this year (and while I think that will happen and it's what I've predicted, it's not a sure thing by any stretch), you suddenly have a team who has 3 titles, 2 sweet 16, and 2 elite 8 spots in the last 10 years. All this in the time frame Duke has one national title.

I'm not saying they will have replaced Duke has the face of college basketball, but I don't think the arguement isn't without merits.

Now, for this to even involve a serious discussion, they have to win it this year.

[Radii]

I'm not saying they will have replaced Duke has the face of college basketball, but I don't think the arguement isn't without merits.

I don't disagree with that at all. But "the face of college basketball in the modern era" ... modern era begins with the Michigan State/Indiana State finals, right? Or the jump to 64 teams in the tourney which was around that time as well? That's where I'm coming from with my argument.

[BuffaloHuskey]

The Biggest difference between UConn and Duke (and I am a huge UConn fan) is that Duke normally re-loads quicker than UConn. Duke does not get knocked out prior to the Sweet 16 very often, but UConn seems to follow up successful years with some clunkers since they are often losing their stars to the NBA.

When UConn wins this tourney they will lose Marcus Williams and Rudy Gay to early entry into the draft. Hilton Armstrong, Denham Brown and Rashad Anderson will be lost to graduation (and they will all most likely get drafted) This will leave them with Josh Boone (most likely he won't leave) and Jeff Adrian as there only main contributors coming back. Their back court will be very young featuring two freshmen and a sophmore. We will be lucky to make the tournament next year. Unfortunately we don't have a loaded class coming in like Duke does, and our guys are not in the same class as the Feshmen that came into Carolina or Kansas this year. This regrouping doesn't seem to happen at Duke which is why I think Duke is still the face of college hoops even when UConn wins championship # 3.

On a side note: Although I hate Duke, their students are very clever with their chants unlike many schools whose students are just demeaning to the opposition.