From: orourke@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Michael O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: Who's almost isn't no. 1 : ) Re: Who's Number 2?
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:19:25 GMT

In <1993Jan5.053243.17653@news.acns.nwu.edu> marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:

>In article <C0D1D5.AJA@inews.Intel.COM>
>smaher@ismdqa.intel.com (Steve Maher ~) writes:

>>My top 9:	1. Duke  (look strong, beat UM)
>>		2. UK    (look strong, beat IU)
>>		3. UM    (lost to Duke @ Duke, beat UNC, KU)
>>		4. UNC   (strong wins, lost close to UM)
>>		5. KU    (lost to UM, beat IU)
>>		6. IU    (lost to UK, KU, beat Seton Hall)
>>		7. da Hall  (lost to IU, don't look quite as strong as other 6)
>>		8. Iowa  (looking impressive against weaker competition)
>>		9. Purdue/Oklahoma/several others not quite there yet.

			...

>In another message a KU fan disputes my assertion that IU is a far superior
>basketball team.  He does so by listing the roster and the players'
>attributes.  This is TV-droid talk, friend.  If you want to see why IU is a
>better team than KU watch the tapes of the games.  IU plays much smarter
>basketball and its players are thinking and moving in a much more
>sophisticated fashion than KU's.  IU makes unusual plays, counterintuitive,
>surprising and picks apart the opponent's defense with a variety of tools.
>It is not particularly important that none of IU's players save Chaney are
>extremely good athletes.  Basketball is not an individual sport.  As a
>team, IU is a far superior, and may I say, far more fun basketball team to
>watch, even when losing, than KU, if you are into pure basketball played by
>a highly intelligent group coached with great savvy.  

Nothing against IU, but if I wanted this, I would watch tapes of
Princeton games.  You are certainly entitled to your aesthetic
opinions, Mr. Lugowski, but there is one salient fact that you have
not mentioned in any of this.  KU and IU have met twice in the past 3
years.  KU has won both times (including once in very resounding
fashion).  Now, IU may play the smartest basketball in the land, a
brand of basketball replete with plays both unusual and
counterintuitive, but in the end, style points do not show up on the
scoreboard.  I think that most basketball fans would agree that
quantity of victories outweighs quality of losses. 

And anyway, while you may know a great deal about IU basketball, you
demonstrate your ignorance of Kansas basketball.  Kansas has become a
top 5 program on the strength of a team concept, a concept that has
gotten an enormous amount out of groups that are not that talented.
The team that lost to Duke in the 1991 Final had only one NBA-caliber
player in Mark Randall, and he is the 12th man for a marginal team.
And of the current squad, I heard one scout say that Greg Ostertag is
the best pro prospect of the bunch.  (Oh, perhaps I am slipping into
"TV-droid talk", whatever that is.  Sorry.)  

IU has a solid team that deserves to be in or close to the Top 5.
They will contend for a spot in the Final Four.  I enjoy watching them
play.  But please, let's not get carried away.  

Rock Chalk
orourke@csli.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college