ESPN: Ranking NCAA Championship teams

[nelsonmuntz]

Where does Virginia rank among all the national championship teams?

1999 team getting love at #21, but I think 2004 was actually the better UConn team. There is no way for ESPN to remember, but I think that 2004 team only lost one game where Okafor was 100%.

I think the UCLA teams had inflated records because they played in a weak conference and the NCAA Tournament regional format back then basically gave them a bye to the Final Four. They played teams like Long Beach State and UC Santa Barbara in the Final 8 some of those years.

 

[billybud]

I remember listening to that 1972 game between FSU and UCLA...did not have a TV in the house that I shared with three other guys. This was before ESPN and cable.

Bill Walton was a monster that year....UCLA had won their games by an average of 32 points...had Walton, along with future NBA guys like Jamaal Wilkes and Henry Bibby.

Playing Dean Smith's North Carolina, Adolph Rupp's Kentucky, and Wooten's UCLA back to back was a bridge a little to far.

 

[upstater]

The 2004 team would beat more than half of the team's ranked ahead of them on that list.

 

[gsmooth]

Yeah, I am not sure how he is ranking these teams. That's a good point, the 04 team really only lost 2-3 (later edit) games with a healthy OK4 (definitely not the 6 games). Also, the 99 team really didn't lose any games at full strength, maybe the Miami game, but I remember they were really injured for that game. I remember even fans, not UConn fans, in 2004 penciled them in as champs before filling out the rest of the bracket.

I think you have to rank how the teams do in the NCAA tourney and how comfortably they win against the level of competition in each round. And look at how high seeded your team was, too (shows how dominant the team was throughout the year). Did they win their 1) conference regular season and 2) did they win their conference tourney, 3) how strong was their schedule? That's why the 99 and 04 were considered so good because they were #1 and #2 seeds (even in 04 they would've been #1 but Stanford and St. Joe's were undefeated after 20+ games) and were great from the beginning of the year all the way to the end. It didn't matter who won or lost games in their brackets-they didn't really have to fear an opponent matching up well with them.
This is why I think so highly of the 1999 UConn, 2004 UConn, 2007 Florida, 2009 Carolina (2005 Carolina to a certain extent), 2012 Kentucky team, and the Nova 2018 team. These teams would beat the other champs and Final Four participants in the 2000s, IMO. These teams were ranked too low,(Nova's was criminal).

 

[gsmooth]

Even with UConn's last 3 years being lousy, I like to think of them in that elite circle with the other historical storied blue bloods (Duke, UNC, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, UCLA) as UConn is a well known basketball brand (most titles in last 20 years). I don't want others forcing their way into that "club", but Nova IMO definitely did that with 2 championships in 3 years. Jay Wright is doing phenomenal things over there. I am not sure he and Nova get enough credit for last year and 2016, especially last year where they blew the doors off everyone they played.

 

[Guapo]

Where does Virginia rank among all the national championship teams?

1999 team getting love at #21, but I think 2004 was actually the better UConn team. There is no way for ESPN to remember, but I think that 2004 team only lost one game where Okafor was 100%.

I think the UCLA teams had inflated records because they played in a weak conference and the NCAA Tournament regional format back then basically gave them a bye to the Final Four. They played teams like Long Beach State and UC Santa Barbara in the Final 8 some of those years.

As much as I’d love to agree with you about UCLA; it’s pretty hard to argue with putting teams with the likes of Walton and KAJ up there.

Those are the two best college basketball players of all time, in my opinion.

 

[gsmooth]

As much as I’d love to agree with you about UCLA; it’s pretty hard to argue with putting teams with the likes of Walton and KAJ up there.

Those are the two best college basketball players of all time, in my opinion.

I know you are responding to the first post.
Those UCLA teams with Walton and Alcindor were great. I have no problem with them being ranked high, even if the field was thin. UConn in 2004 lost a few games with a healthy OK4, more than 1, but I remember they lost few where he was clearly hurt or didn't even play at all.

 

[upstater]

I know you are responding to the first post.
Those UCLA teams with Walton and Alcindor were great. I have no problem with them being ranked high, even if the field was thin. UConn in 2004 lost a few games with a healthy OK4, more than 1, but I remember they lost few where he was clearly hurt or didn't even play at all.

During 2 weeks of the 2004 tourney, I was away from home working in Chicago, and we were watching the games at restaurants with some new aquaintances that I was working with. These people were amazed at how relaxed and confident I was at UConn's dominance. I've never rooted for any of my favorite teams with the kind of absolute assurance I had in the eventual outcome like I did for that 2004 team except maybe for the 1986 Boston Celtics (and yes, this includes the 2007 Patriots who scuffled at the end of the year).

 

[billybud]

I just looked up Bill Walton's 1972 season...

He averaged a 20 point, 16 rebound double-double through the season...that's a heck of a stat.

 

[Mano]

I just looked up Bill Walton's 1972 season...

He averaged a 20 point, 16 rebound double-double through the season...that's a heck of a stat.

Probably averaged double digits doobies per day too!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I can't get past the schedules that UCLA would play. Two other factors are at the least significant qualifiers for teams from the past:

1) NIT. The NIT was still a viable alternative to the NCAA Tournament for top teams well into the 1960's.
2) Selection. Prior to 1975, only division winners made the NCAA Tournament. This severely weakened the field, as many of the top teams in the country got left out of the NCAA's every single year.

I am not saying UCLA wasn't really good and didn't have a lot of great players, but it is really hard to compare across eras in college basketball.

Edit:

Other things that make comparisons difficult:

Shot clock
3 point shot

 

[tykurez]

There’s no way you can effectively rank all the champions. This is clickbait only.

 

[businesslawyer]

The answer between our '99 and '04 champions doesn't change over the time. If both teams played their A game, the '04 team wins. But the '99 team played their A game almost every night, while the '04 team didn't. In terms of which team played better basketball from start to finish, even if you through out games where teams were fighting injuries, it was the '99 team.

 

[McLovin]

This list is recycled year after year. I'm pretty sure the rankings and write-ups for each team were done years ago and they have just been adding in the new champions each year. No thought or effort ever went into or will ever go into this article.