ESPN Ranks All of the NCAA Championship Teams

[upstater]

I doubt you were saying that with 5 minutes left in the Duke game.

This is why I pointed out Emeka's foul situation. UConn would have won that game by 15 if not for those 2 inexplicable calls.

 

[Waquoit]

This is why I pointed out Emeka's foul situation. UConn would have won that game by 15 if not for those 2 inexplicable calls.

Pointing out fouls doesn't make what happened real time "anticlimactic". It was a nailbiter.

 

[upstater]

Pointing out fouls doesn't make what happened real time "anticlimactic". It was a nailbiter.

Say wha? Stop trying to start something and realize that I wrote that, except for that situation, the tourney was anticlimactic. You're not adding anything here.

 

[Obrero]

Anyone else think that if Duke had won in 1999, they'd be ranked much higher?

Absolutely. They'd be a top ten lock, maybe top five.

 

[Chin Diesel]

My personal memories go back to G'town/UNC at the Superdome.

So, from that time frame the three most dominant teams I've seen are

UNLV 1990
G'town 1984
UConn 2004

I'm talking a combination of raw talent, speed, athleticism, defense, coaching, shooting, flexibility, etc.

 

[tzznandrew]

My personal memories go back to G'town/UNC at the Superdome.

So, from that time frame the three most dominant teams I've seen are

UNLV 1990
G'town 1984
UConn 2004

I'm talking a combination of raw talent, speed, athleticism, defense, coaching, shooting, flexibility, etc.

I'd add 1996 Kentucky to that list of just thoroughly better than anyone else. But I think that's a fair list of domination.

 

[Tommyboy]

I'd add 1996 Kentucky to that list of just thoroughly better than anyone else. But I think that's a fair list of domination.

I think Uconn and Duke 99 could have both been on that list except for each other.

 

[gtcam]

I don't care if UConns 4 so far were ranked at the bottom - though I know that 2004 team would kick the azzes of most all those above them
4 UConn won 4

 

[auror]

Just saw the UNLV team ranking, what a freaking joke. That UNLV team and 2004 UConn would slaughter a bunch of teams ahead of them.

45. UNLV Rebels, 1990 (35-5)

Though the national championship game is remembered as the most one-sided ever, UNLV's 103-73 win over Duke was recorded by a team that had lost five times in the regular season. (Jerry Tarkanian's group also had to survive a 69-67 scare from No. 12 seed Ball State in the Sweet 16.) It was the Rebels team the following season that really looked unstoppable. Larry Johnson, Anderson Hunt, Stacey Augmon and Greg Anthony all returned and the Rebels won their first 34 games before the Blue Devils got their revenge in the Final Four, 79-77.

Basically, we think the '90 team was great because the '91 team really was great and they played a great championship game (against a 3 seed). '90 was good, but not as good as most people in this thread think it was. They lost to UC-Santa Barbara for goodness sake. They weren't the #1 team in the country going into the NCAA tournament either and beat #16, #8, #12, #11, #4, and #3 to win the title.

 

[tzznandrew]

Basically, we think the '90 team was great because the '91 team really was great and they played a great championship game (against a 3 seed). '90 was good, but not as good as most people in this thread think it was. They lost to UC-Santa Barbara for goodness sake. They weren't the #1 team in the country going into the NCAA tournament either and beat #16, #8, #12, #11, #4, and #3 to win the title.

UC Santa Barbara that year was in their conference and made the NCAAs with a 21-9 record.They were a 9-seed, beat the 8 and gave 1-seed Michigan State a tough game.

Make no mistake: that team was really freaking good, and not just because of 1991.

 

[auror]

UC Santa Barbara that year was in their conference and made the NCAAs with a 21-9 record.They were a 9-seed, beat the 8 and gave 1-seed Michigan State a tough game.

Make no mistake: that team was really freaking good, and not just because of 1991.

Really good, yes. But there are people suggesting in this thread that they should be top 5 or top 10 champ of all time which is almost all based on champ game and following year.

I mentioned the weak seeds they beat in the tourny, but they lost to probably the 2 best teams on their regular season schedule (Oklahoma and Kansas, #1 and #2 seed). They beat Arizona (#2 seed), Arkansas (#4 seed), and Louisville (#4 seed) at home, which were their best wins.

Other games against tourny teams-:
Wins - Loyola M (#11), Cal (#9), @Temple (#11), UC-Santa Barbara (#9), New Mexico St (#6), Louisville (#4)
Losses - @New Mexico St (#6), @UC-Santa Barbara (#9), @LSU (#5)

So 9-5 against tournament teams, but their best win away from home was (#11) Temple. A good resume, but considering they beat nobody in the tournament, I don't see how you can make the case they're one of the best champs ever.

 

[A10 fan]

I'd add 1996 Kentucky to that list of just thoroughly better than anyone else. But I think that's a fair list of domination.

That UK team was very good, but they weren't top ranked going into the tournament, UMass, who beat them earlier in the year was number 1. UK got revenge in the semis though. The championship game was anticlimactic, as everyone considered UK/UMass to be the real title game, which of course, it was. UConn was the only team that might have given those two teams a game.

 

[Jaker]

Uconn abused Cuse in 03

 

[A10 fan]

Really good, yes. But there are people suggesting in this thread that they should be top 5 or top 10 champ of all time which is almost all based on champ game and following year.

I mentioned the weak seeds they beat in the tourny, but they lost to probably the 2 best teams on their regular season schedule (Oklahoma and Kansas, #1 and #2 seed). They beat Arizona (#2 seed), Arkansas (#4 seed), and Louisville (#4 seed) at home, which were their best wins.

Other games against tourny teams-:
Wins - Loyola M (#11), Cal (#9), @Temple (#11), UC-Santa Barbara (#9), New Mexico St (#6), Louisville (#4)
Losses - @New Mexico St (#6), @UC-Santa Barbara (#9), @LSU (#5)

So 9-5 against tournament teams, but their best win away from home was (#11) Temple. A good resume, but considering they beat nobody in the tournament, I don't see how you can make the case they're one of the best champs ever.

What happens here is not only was the game horribly one sided, but when you look at Duke's roster, you see Hurley, and Laettner, who are Duke legends. The idea of a Laettner/Hurley team being destroyed like that, elevates that UNLV team in the eyes of many.

 

[A10 fan]

The six losses hurt. And they did look a little lost halfway through the year. But at their peak, in the tournament, very few teams above them.
The list is weird. They love the 70s, hate the 40s, and apparently don't know how to distinguish our '11 and '14 teams.

Even if you rate teams based on their era, the 40s teams are going to come up short, because until the late 50s, half of the Top 20 would routinely turn down NCAA bids to go play in the NIT. Even after the NCAA Tournament clearly became better (late 50s), the NIT still had strong fields, due to the fact that only conference champions, and independents could play in the NCAA Tournament. This usually left 7-8 ranked teams for the NIT, and was a major reason why UCLA was able to win 10 titles in 12 years. In 1991, the Duke team that beat UNLV did not win the ACC Tournament, and would not have been in the field under the rules in place back when UCLA was winning.

 

[auror]

What happens here is not only was the game horribly one sided, but when you look at Duke's roster, you see Hurley, and Laettner, who are Duke legends. The idea of a Laettner/Hurley team being destroyed like that, elevates that UNLV team in the eyes of many.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or not, but that is the wrongful perception I'm arguing against. This was the Duke team that needed a prayer to advance past UConn. Duke didn't get a 1 seed in '89,'90 or '91, so while their run of Final Fours was incredible, they were never considered great teams during those seasons. Laettner was a soph and Hurley was a freshman. Talking about Phil Henderson, Abdelnaby, and Brickey as the senior leaders. Henderson, their leading scorer, barely got drafted and Abdelnaby was the 3rd to last first round pick. Danny Ferry was gone, Grant Hill wasn't there yet and Bill McCaffrey was a freshman. Similar to how everyone views this UNLV team as great because the next year they were, the '90 Duke team that made the championship was not a special team and UNLV exposed them, and that doesn't signal that UNLV was themselves a great team.

 

[A10 fan]

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or not, but that is the wrongful perception I'm arguing against. This was the Duke team that needed a prayer to advance past UConn. Duke didn't get a 1 seed in '89,'90 or '91, so while their run of Final Fours was incredible, they were never considered great teams during those seasons. Laettner was a soph and Hurley was a freshman. Talking about Phil Henderson, Abdelnaby, and Brickey as the senior leaders. Henderson, their leading scorer, barely got drafted and Abdelnaby was the 3rd to last first round pick. Danny Ferry was gone, Grant Hill wasn't there yet and Bill McCaffrey was a freshman. Similar to how everyone views this UNLV team as great because the next year they were, the '90 Duke team that made the championship was not a special team and UNLV exposed them, and that doesn't signal that UNLV was themselves a great team.

Pretty much agreeing with you. 26 years down the line, people don't remember the particulars, they just see Duke, and Laettner/Hurley, and think, WOW!

 

[tzznandrew]

That UK team was very good, but they weren't top ranked going into the tournament, UMass, who beat them earlier in the year was number 1. UK got revenge in the semis though. The championship game was anticlimactic, as everyone considered UK/UMass to be the real title game, which of course, it was. UConn was the only team that might have given those two teams a game.

They might not have been #1 going into the tournament, but they were dominant during the regular season, even moreso than that UMass team, who played a weaker SOS and had a point differential of 12.4, compared to UK's 22 ppg differential.

Again, both great teams, certainly the two best that year (with UConn as 3), but I'd put UK on a slighter higher level than them, even with the second loss in the SEC tournament.

 

[Gurleyman]

They might not have been #1 going into the tournament, but they were dominant during the regular season, even moreso than that UMass team, who played a weaker SOS and had a point differential of 12.4, compared to UK's 22 ppg differential.

Again, both great teams, certainly the two best that year (with UConn as 3), but I'd put UK on a slighter higher level than them, even with the second loss in the SEC tournament.

Trouble is, they lost that SEC championship game by almost 20. If you are going to pick the best champion in the modern era, I think not winning your conference title should be a significant strike against you. There was a trophy at stake, and you lost. So you aren't as much of a champion as a team that didn't lose in the postseason at all.

I think you can hold it against the '04 team that they were a two seed and slide them back a couple spots, even though I think they beat UK '12 by 10+ with their experience factor (Anthony Davis now is a totally different player than the guy who played for UK and was average offensively). All you really have against '99 is a two-point loss to Miami in the regular season (props to Miami). They were the ones doing the pimping, yo in the conference championship game - they weren't the pimpees.

 

[tzznandrew]

Trouble is, they lost that SEC championship game by almost 20. If you are going to pick the best champion in the modern era, I think not winning your conference title should be a significant strike against you. There was a trophy at stake, and you lost. So you aren't as much of a champion as a team that didn't lose in the postseason at all.

I think you can hold it against the '04 team that they were a two seed and slide them back a couple spots, even though I think they beat UK '12 by 10+ with their experience factor (Anthony Davis now is a totally different player than the guy who played for UK and was average offensively). All you really have against '99 is a two-point loss to Miami in the regular season (props to Miami). They were the ones doing the pimping, yo in the conference championship game - they weren't the pimpees.

All this depends on how we are defining "best champions." After the huge win-streak, UK didn't take the game seriously, for whatever reason. They'd still run most of those teams ahead of them off the court.

 

[Lefty2one]

Wow. Our 2004 team would have beat 2010 Duke by 20 points. A team with four future lottery picks, six first rounders against a team with one first-rounder who barely had a cup of coffee in the NBA. Hilarious.

 

[auror]

Wow. Our 2004 team would have beat 2010 Duke by 20 points. A team with four future lottery picks, six first rounders against a team with one first-rounder who barely had a cup of coffee in the NBA. Hilarious.

I agree with your point, but this is a bit of a gross mischaracterization. Singler, Lance Thomas, Mason and Miles Plumlee are all currently in NBA rotations. Nolan Smith was a 1st rounder and suffered a bad injury that seems to have derailed his career (maybe he wouldn't have made it anyways, but he was a draftee aside from the other names). Zoubek had the smallest of cups of coffee. So they had 6 NBA guys and Jon Scheyer, who was actually their best player that year, went undrafted, but he was a 1st team All-American.