Strange decisions. I think that "Best Teams not to Win"
have to be the overwhelming favorites going into the tournament. I guess if you think there are
two historically great teams in one season, sure.
For these purposes, 1995 can't count because we clearly weren't the favorite. Neither can 1994--UNC maybe, but not us. 1996 we were probably 3rd in line, behind UK and UMass as favorites.
2004 (despite our seed) and 2006 were two years we went into the tournament as favorites. I know
@Gurleyman says that Duke was the heavy favorite in 2006, but I don't think that's true. Notice neither #1 overall 2004 (UK) nor the two teams that either went into the final weekend or their own conference tournament undefeated (Stanford and St. Joe's) is listed here. Seeding is irrelevant. Duke had 3 losses; UConn had 3 losses.
And I think most people thought we were the most talented team--Gay, Boone, Armstrong, and Williams were all drafted in the first round that year. So, there was a perception that we were the best team that year, even if we often didn't back it up. While
we know the 2006 team was fatally flawed (despite the fact that a win against GMU and I think they win), most of the country doesn't see it like that.
We pay attention to our own team in ways that others don't. And perception (we were the most talented team and choked) is really reality (we may have been the most talented, but we needed a second ball handler. Also we choked) in these things.