“People tend to forget how good the UConn Men's Basketball team has been the last quarter century.“

[Lefty2one]

I mean, 2004 had way more talent up and down the roster, and when Okafor's back was healthy, were definitely better.

Maybe their comp was better idk. Although, if Okafor hadn't gotten called for cheap fouls against Duke, I think they would have rolled their too.

09 didn't have an elite player. Thabeet was absolutely elite on D, one of the best ever, but not so much on the offensive end.

EDIT: I see all this was already covered. carry on.

Throughout the 2009 season, I was never certain we were the best team in the country. UNC was considered better by most folks; I don't think it's a given we beat them even with Dyson.

In 2004, wire-to-wire I felt we were by far the best team in the country when we were healthy. It was the only season in UConn history I felt that way. There had to be a fluke for us to not win it all. Nearly happened thanks to those boneheaded refs in the Duke game.

 

[SubbaBub]

I think you would have better off going with Indiana. Since winning it all in 87, they have been to two final fours. UCLA won it in 95 and have been to 3 final fours since then. I like the idea of giving programs 1 point for a final four, 2 more for a final 2 and 4 more for a championship. Using that criteria, here's what you get:
UCLA 88
Kentucky 73
UNC 66
Duke 58
Kansas 45
Indiana 40
^ End of the blue bloods
then you have:
UConn 29
Ohio St 24
Mich St 23
Louisville 20
Cincy 20
Oklahoma St 20

Pretty clear separation between the blue bloods and not blue bloods. UConn needs at least 4 more final fours and a championship to be considered one.

Recalculate for the 64 team era. You are including segregation era and small field teams. If you want to start with the Alcindor UCLA teams that is fine, if only as a bone to the WBB fans.

 

[SubbaBub]

Throughout the 2009 season, I was never certain we were the best team in the country. UNC was considered better by most folks; I don't think it's a given we beat them even with Dyson.

In 2004, wire-to-wire I felt we were by far the best team in the country when we were healthy. It was the only season in UConn history I felt that way. There had to be a fluke for us to not win it all. Nearly happened thanks to those boneheaded refs in the Duke game.

Also the best in 99 and 06 and 96. Probably 95 too.

 

[tzznandrew]

Recalculate for the 64 team era. You are including segregation era and small field teams. If you want to start with the Alcindor UCLA teams that is fine, if only as a bone to the WBB fans.

Um, someone did.

 

[tzznandrew]

Also the best in 99 and 06 and 96. Probably 95 too.

That Kentucky team smoked most people. Even if we were healthy, no guarantee they win that.

Also, that UCLA team had 2 losses all year. You might be able to argue we deserved a #1 seed over Wake (5 losses) or Kansas (5 losses)...but Kansas whooped us by 29 and we got spanked twice by Villanova. Hard to argue they were clearly the best team when they had a 20+ point home loss and a near 30 point loss to another very good team

 

[Lefty2one]

Also the best in 99 and 06 and 96. Probably 95 too.

I don't think you can say we were by far the best team in any of those seasons. Didn't Calhoun say we'd have lost to '99 Duke 7 times out of 10 or something along those lines? He talked about it in one of his books.

'96 UK was better than us (doesn't mean we couldn't have beat them in the tournament) and our '95 team gets a little overrated by our fanbase IMO - see the reasons tzznandrew mentioned. Those teams were great but weren't unquestionably the best team in America. Our 2004 squad was 'efff you" good.

 

[tzznandrew]

I don't think you can say we were by far the best team in any of those seasons. Didn't Calhoun say we'd have lost to '99 Duke 7 times out of 10 or something along those lines? He talked about it in one of his books.

'96 UK was better than us (doesn't mean we couldn't have beat them in the tournament) and our '95 team gets a little overrated by our fanbase IMO - see the reasons tzznandrew mentioned. Those teams were great but weren't unquestionably the best team in America. Our 2004 squad was 'efff you" good.

I think 99 was the best team in the country. They performed the same or better than Duke against common opponents. If JC said that, it was because he was being generous, but they weren't unquestionably better: that Duke team was a freaking fantastic. Probably the second best team not to win a title (behind 1991 UNLV).

 

[Waquoit]

2004 just couldn't get their ish together until the tournament.

I would say got they cooking before that. They won the Big East Tournament without Emeka. And they only lost one game after President's Day.

 

[Waquoit]

I think 99 was the best team in the country. They performed the same or better than Duke against common opponents. If JC said that, it was because he was being generous, but they weren't unquestionably better: that Duke team was a freaking fantastic.

The way I saw it, the Alaskan Assassin had to shoot out of his mind to keep it close. And Rip shot below 50%. We beat them with our A- game.

 

[TheChamps990411]

Syracuse?

4>1*

Not saying theyre on our level but they have made numerous F4 appearances with a title in the "new era".

 

[Matrim55]

Fair enough. Let's add 1 point for each #1 seed (seeding was started in 79 w/Bird-Magic, so I'm okay bending my pre-1985 rule).

Only accounting for the teams I have listed (Virginia, for instance, has 6, more than a number on that list):

#1 Seeds

1. UNC: 16
2. Kansas: 14
3. Duke: 13
4. Kentucky: 12
5. Arizona: 6
6. UConn: 5
7. Michigan State: 5
8. Ohio State: 4
9. UCLA: 4
10. Villanova: 4
11. Indiana: 3
12. Louisville: 3
13. Syracuse: 3
14. Florida: 2
15. Michigan: 2

Revised Totals

1. UNC: 67
2. Duke: 61
3. Kentucky: 59
4. UCLA: 50
5. Kansas: 48
6. UConn: 31
7. Michigan State: 27
8. Louisville: 27
9. Indiana: 22
10. Villanova: 22
11. Florida: 20
12. Ohio State: 20
13. Michigan: 19
14. Arizona: 18
15. Syracuse: 18
16. NC State: 8
17. Cincinnati: 7

I feel like tonight puts Villanova uncomfortably close, no?

 

[Coach J]

The Answer is Kansas, Villanova, Arizona, Florida, Michigan , Ohio State, Notre Dame and Micigan State.

The question was: Programs with less National Championships then UConn.

Just saying. Not a blue blood my ass, just cuz we had 3 bad years, we will be back!!!

 

[CL82]

Not saying theyre on our level but they have made numerous F4 appearances with a title in the "new era".

The original quote was multiple natties. That ain't 'cuse. At most they can claim like .37 of a natty due to the asterisk.

 

[Matrim55]

The Answer is Kansas, Villanova, Arizona, Florida, Michigan , Ohio State, Notre Dame and Micigan State.

The question was: Programs with less National Championships then UConn.