IMO, last years team had one of the best seasons ever, but not one of the best teams ever. The college game has changed so much over the years that college ball has been watered down drastically.
Why is it a fact? Because it's your opinion? I happen to agree but I'm just wondering how you believe it's a fact?
Well, here's one problem with one of your facts. Tim Duncan wasn't a senior in 96. He was a senior in 97.
Because I watched every single game both teams played and because the college game was MUCH better in 96. That's not opinion. Every single person that actually has anything to do with the college game knows and normally states it. Why? Simple. The best players did not leave after one season. Our 96 team had numerous extremely talented seniors. Few teams today do. Frankly it's just common sense. I agree with another poster that said we had a great season last year, but we're not a team for the ages. It had a few glaring weaknesses that it could generally cover up with size and depth. It had one player that can be dominant and that's KAT.
You apparently don't know the definition of fact. What you are stating as fact is merely your opinion. You have no statistics to back anything you're saying.
Whatever. Have it your way. My guess is you're not even old enough to remember the 96 team and think everything today is better. I'll leave it at this. Anyone that pays attention knows the college game isn't what it was a couple of decades ago. Whether you believe it means nothing to me.
I'm 42.
I just don't know how it can be seen as superior to 25 years ago when guys like Shaq stayed till his junior year and guys like Alonzo Mourning and Grant Hill stayed until their senior years. The talent level coming out of high school is the same, but all of the great talent leaving after one or two years is what waters it down. Anthony Davis would have stayed at least 2, possibly 3 years in the early 90's. That's what the big difference is.
Did they have AAU back then? I think AAU makes a big difference with today's incoming freshmen. But you're right, players stayed longer back then, I just don't think they were as good when they arrived as freshmen as they are now.
Honestly, the only perceived "weakness" that was given to that team is that we didn't have a traditional center or more that we struggled against good big men.
No doubt it's opinion. But, it's opinion backed by facts. The FACT is the best players in college basketball generally stayed in school 3-4 years back then. That's a FACT. They do not now. That's a FACT. It does not take a genius to see that these FACTS made the teams stronger then. I know what my eyes show me and I can think logically. Is there some statistic that I can rely on? No. But that does not change the argument. It's widely stated by the so-called experts that the game is more watered down today because of what I just stated. Players stayed in school longer and developed into better players over 3-4 years, generally speaking. As far as AAU ball goes, I'm not sure whether that helps or hurts players. Yes, they compete against other talented players, but they also develop bad habits. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Players in the past generally had better fundamentals because fundamentals were stressed over high flying dunks.
Funny you mention this in regards to the 95-96 team, because that was actually right when players stopped staying 3-4 years.
What's your point? Lots of freshmen do that today because the best players never play past their freshman year. That's the whole point to this discussion.
Yes, it started around that time, but most players still stayed around until their junior or senior year. Not all, but most. Tim Duncan played four years. There are many other examples as well.
