ESPN ranks this 2024 team as the 29th best champion.

[willie99]

Closer to the best than 28th

 

[Waquoit]

I have no idea how you rank this team against 1959 San Francisco or whoever, but if you're talking the last 45 years, we should be in the top 5.

I think Clingan nulifies Russell, he was never a good shooter. We put Castle on KC Jones and I think our outside shooting prevails.

 

[Waquoit]

Our 97 team team in a rebuild gave Kansas a game, funny thing is Paul Pierce career ended losing to an 8 seeded URI team.

Still better than Shaq, who went out losing to an 11th seeded UConn team.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I don't see how we're below 2018 Villanova though. Less losses, higher KenPom adjEM, bigger tournament scoring margin.

That's easy: they beat a B1G team (Michigan) in the finals by 17 points. UConn beat Purdue by only 15.

 

[inWV]

There's a lot of UCLAs and Bill Russell San Francisco teams ahead, which, fine. Ewing Georgetown teams. Undefeated Indiana. 90 UNLV. Sure.

There's a premium on losses, so '99 UConn is ranked better at 20th.

I don't see how we're below 2018 Villanova though. Less losses, higher KenPom adjEM, bigger tournament scoring margin.

This team clubs the 99 team like a baby seal. Rip prob didn’t see a defender like Castle in college.

 

[jibsey]

ESPN, the network that hyped the Big 10 all year as best conference, the network that had the BE as the 4th best conference, that is in bed with the ACC. Their big basketball prognosticator Lunardi finally had to admit that no one was going to beat us in The Final Four?
They hyped Purdue all season as the team to beat and UConn was maybe as good, now we pulverized them in the final, and yes we let up and squeezed that lead the last 12 minutes of the game basically.
It’s a network of fools, it really is and if you don’t believe me just listen to their football and NBA drivel. Pay no attention.
.

 

[TheChamps990411]

If we were televised by ESPN we would be top ten .

Aaaaaaand there it is. People are going on and on about how much better the womens game is and ratings bla bla bla. The womens games is the same as its always been its just BSPN has shoved it down our throats for the last two years telling people how great it is and like moths to the flame advertising is the new mind control of the masses. No offense but i only watch when the Uconn women are in the final 4 or play another top ranked team but i find it boring and an inferior product to the mens game and i think the college game is far more watchable than the WNBA. Dont care if i get roasted for it.
I just find it funny that since 2011 every time Uconn wins the national title there is always some bs narrative immediately afterwards of whether they didnt play any good teams, they got lucky somehow or the mens game is watered down. Its always some excuse and im sick of it. Its the one thing that gets under my skin. Im usually pretty chill about the hate but the trying to diminish our accomplishment just sets me off.

 

[TheChamps990411]

I mean I cud see maybe the ucla teams , the Ewing gtown teams or the Kentucky 96 team or 90 unlv but that it At the very very least, they are top 10

I seen the 96` UK team and the 90` UNLV teams. The Uk team was deep but lacked a true pg and they loved to get out and run and shoot 3s. We usually shut down both of those things defensively. That year in the Final 4 they played Umass who had Marcus Camby and then a bunch of guys that did not even sniff the NBA with a backcourt similar to what Purdue put out and Purdues was by far better and what happened? Uk 96 won 81-76. If that Umass team could give them that close a game this Uconn 24` team absolutely dismantles them.
As far as UNLV 90 thats the best team ive ever seen and yet they lost 6 games and barely escaped ball st by 2 points in the tournament. You dont think Castle, Diarra, Cam and Tris dont give Greg Anthony and Anderson Hunt all they can handle? Yeah ok. I think the frontcourt edge goes to UNLV but the backcourt is clearly us. This Uconn team was an absolute wagon that is a threat to win a national title IN ANY ERA, ANY YEAR YOU WANT TO PUT THEM IN!!!

 

[auror]

This team clubs the 99 team like a baby seal. Rip prob didn’t see a defender like Castle in college.

Uh Ricky Moore was his teammate lol. So I guess maybe technically not? But then Moore is still guarding someone on this year's team in this hypothetical.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Pretty sad when Skip Bayless is the only one with actual analysis. Pierce and Keyshawn salty as hell. Skip caved in on the stupidity at the table.

Our 97 team team in a rebuild gave Kansas a game, funny thing is Paul Pierce career ended losing to an 8 seeded URI team. Does Pierce know he’s ringless without Ray.

While there’s this obsession of all time great teams due to all time great players. Did you know 82 Georgetown lost to Uconn.

I actually watched this, having no prior familiarity with the show; glancing familiarity with Bayliss; name familiarity with Johnson; and lack of current day physical recognition of Pierce.

I can translate their perspective & overall judgment to the point of understanding the discussion, but I can't rise to the level of a cogent argument as to why anybody would feel need to spend their time watching a show like this.

In that sense, I'll be arrogant AND generous at the same time: my basis and their basis for watching or not watching what interests us either affirms both or cancels each other out. Nobody's got a clear winner. If they feel compelled to drag me down, I'll make sure they'll be coming along with me.

Good for them and Fox if they've located a monetizing audience for what I'd consider a waste of my time.

Once again, I'm reminded of the guy on a nation-spanning conference call I facilitated each week for an internet consultancy with widely dispersed management & core competencies due to its roll-up growth model before it all imploded, just prior to 3rd-round funding in late 2000, as the dot.com bubble burst. "Allow me to showcase my ignorance" was this guy's usual intro. There was a refreshing honesty to the phrasing. Pierce & Johnson offered no such disclaimer. One of them said watching the UConn-Purdue game was like "second nature" to him, which I think meant low level in priority for something he gave background attention.

Thanks for posting this. From this small sample, I feel like I got 85% of the way to all I'd ever need to see if the show.

 

[nycscooby]

Silly list/ranking. I would say any champion before 1985 when field was expanded to 64 which makes winning the title so much harder has to have the quality of their title discounted and those titles prior to 1975 when the tournament was expanded from 16 to 32 even more. In fact, to me all the championships prior to 1975 should have asterisks because the field was 16 and only a small population of schools were probably even really considered for the field.

 

[KemBuckets21]

Classic espn hater take, largest winning margin in the tourney should lock you into the top 10. They must be going off pro prospects.

 

[Scrutineer]

My expert analysis of this list? Clickbait.

We've had Bilas, Barkley, Kellogg, Smith, Wright and many many others talking for weeks now about how dominant this team is and then "some guy" (not the former one from the Courant) comes out with a BS list and we're reacting to it? Fuggetabout it.

We were out to dinner last night and the couple at the next table saw my UConn golf shirt and they (from UCF and Indiana) couldn't say enough good things about the dominance and just the way we play. That along with comments from friends as they've seen more of the Huskies of late speak volumes about how dominant they were and how they'll be remembered.