Originally Posted by nyjunc
UK had a supremely talent team, a team that would be supremely talented in any era BUT they were freshman dominated. If that was a team of mostly sophs or juniors they could have competed w/ UNC '09 but they were freshman teetering all year playing close games against bad teams like Carolina.
Sure those guys would be good players in any year but did that mean they were on great teams? This was the weakest field ever, it's not even close. Compare the 2 title teams to title game teams of the past decade and let me know what you find.
Carolina '10 almost beat UK '10, Carolina '09 would have smoked UK by at least 15-20 pts. They had talent but they also had a new coach and almost a completely new team.
LSU '09, who Carolina faced in the SECOND ROUND, could have competed w/ duke or Butler this year. After that Carolina smoked a GOOD gonzaga team in the Sweet 16 and crushed an OU team that was top 5 for most of the year and only lost games when Blake Griffin was hurt.
The '09 'Nova team was MUCH better than '10 and in '09 Nova was a 3 seed vs. being a 2 seed this year. The talent level isn't close, there wasn't a tam in the FF as good as any of the 4 teams in the FF last year- I would say as good as any of the elite 8 teams from last year. '09 pitt, '09 OU, '09 UL would have thrashed this years FF teams.
Baylor "lost" to duke thanks to that blown call.
Weakest field ever and it's not even close.
I agree the '09 field wasn't the strongest either but it was much stronger than '10. What we saw the other night was mediocrity, we saw greatness a year ago.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this because I think, for example, that Final 4 blowout victim WVU '10 is at least the equal of title game participant MSU '09 and that your views on this appear to be part of an exercise to soften the blow of a Duke title right on the heels (no pun intended) of a UNC one. I remember being pretty irked myself when UNC won in 1993 after Duke won in 1992.