In terms of talent, I would say yes. And the 98 UK team would be right there too. Hatz mentioned some of the others that come to mind, though I would add the 93 UNC team to the list.

I'd say that this team is a lot more "underrated" then most teams. Even their our fans (myself included) under estimated this Duke team.

Guilty here......I expected a Sweet 16....and hoped for better...Zoubek and the bigs have made me look stupid.

I'd be suprised to see Scheyer play in the league.

 

me too....I see coaching in his future.

I'd say this years team is the best shooting team Duke has had in a while, but certainly not one of the more talented teams since 1990.

 

As a whole, I'd agree, this has to be one of the best shooting teams I have seen Duke have in awhile, that said, it could all end in one slump.

In terms of talent, I would say yes. And the 98 UK team would be right there too. Hatz mentioned some of the others that come to mind, though I would add the 93 UNC team to the list.

 

I didn't mention them because they did have George Lynch and Eric Montross who had descent journeymen careers. But I never thought that team was that loaded but a good and deep collegiate team. :thumb:

me too....I see coaching in his future.

 

Will he be the next Wojo on the bench?

Naw, he'll be next to Nate James. He has to earn his stripes before he can sit next to Collins and Wojo.:lol:

Maryland was not all that talented either but they were talented by college standards, as is this year's Duke team. Does that make sense?

Guilty here......I expected a Sweet 16....and hoped for better...Zoubek and the bigs have made me look stupid.

 

Hardly anyone thought Duke would be here. As they say, that's why they play the games.

The most talented team quite often does not win the title. But as has already been said, it doesn't say 'Not as talented national champ' on the trophy, just national champ. Which ever team wins tonight will just be the national champs and played their best ball when it counted the most.

 

UK's '98 team may not have been as talented as some of the other teams, but they still got it done. Same as Mich St in 2000. The winner tonight will also not be who many picked to win it in their pools, but they will still cart home the big prize.

 

I just hate that they can't get football lined out when you can see the obvious excitement and finality of the basketball tourney. This is the best postseason in all of sports and the NCAA should try to capture at least some of it for football.

The most talented team quite often does not win the title. But as has already been said, it doesn't say 'Not as talented national champ' on the trophy, just national champ. Which ever team wins tonight will just be the national champs and played their best ball when it counted the most.

 

:thumb:

 

You just have to beat the team in front of you...whether Duke or Butler could have beat UK, Kansas, etc. doesn't mean a thing. Both of those teams have done that when nobody else could in this tournament.

I agree with what you're saying, MT, but if they do become the national champions than it's a valid question to ask where they stand up against other national championship teams -- Teams that were playing this year don't even need to enter the argument.

 

I went through a little lull in the early 2000s where I didn't watch much basketball, so based on what I have seen I'd probably go with the '97 Arizona Wildcats as the "least talented" right now... Subject to change this year for sure... But not guaranteed to change.

Duke's talent level is getting a bit of a bad rap. They have some excellent college level talent that may not appear to translate to NBA stars, but I wouldn't be surprised to see 5 or more players on Duke's roster play in the NBA. How many McDonald's All-Americans do they have?

Now this certainly isn't a knock on this year's team. They are obviously a great basketball team, but just comparing them to some of the great teams to win championships over the past 20 years. This team reminds me a lot of the 1998 Kentucky Wildcat team in that both teams were either a #1 or #2 seed, and had very good talent, but not the talent level that past teams had, and nobody really expected either team to win a championship going into the tournament.

 

Duke is similar to the 98 UK team, although they may have a little more talent than the Cats had that year. Uk starters were Turner, Sheppard, Evans, Padgett and Mohammed with Edwards, Magloire, Mills and Saul Smith coming off the bench. No NBA stars on that team.

I agree with what you're saying, MT, but if they do become the national champions than it's a valid question to ask where they stand up against other national championship teams -- Teams that were playing this year don't even need to enter the argument.

 

I went through a little lull in the early 2000s where I didn't watch much basketball, so based on what I have seen I'd probably go with the '97 Arizona Wildcats as the "least talented" right now... Subject to change this year for sure... But not guaranteed to change.

 

I'm just curious why some consider that '97 Arizona team a "least talented" squad?

 

As mentioned before, they jelled at the right time and had some NBA talent on that squad. Add in a very good college guard in Miles Simon and the fact they returned in tact the next year, were ranked #1 most of the season and lost in an upset to Utah in the Elite Eight. They were more "talented" than the '98 UK squad IMO. Bibby's presence alone shows that. :thumb: