Is 1999 Duke the best basketball team ever? | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Is 1999 Duke the best basketball team ever?

That's K's m.o. Recruit McD's All-Americans and rest on their skillz

Is it your implication that Duke was not stacked?! I disagree.

Regarding Burgess, meh. He only played 2 years at Duke and had OK numbers on a team of all-stars. He was like the 7th best player because look who was in front of him.
You basically ignore the fact that - especially back then - a good deal of recruiting rankings were adjusted due to who was recruiting them. And, honestly, it hasn't changed all that much since. Either that or the vaunted Coach K has done less with more McD's AAs than any coach in the game.
 
Sorry as I said or implied, my memory of the teams was vague. No Idea how good either was that year, but they are certainly significant teams which only reinforces my argument.

I should have put a smiley on it because I didn't intend to be a D!c& about it . . .

I remember discussing it with people leading up to the game, particularly the results vs. SJU and MSU (final 8 and final 4 teams, respectively).
 
No. I’d take the 96 Kentucky team over them that beat umass and Camby in final 4. That squad had: Antoine walker, Ron Mercer, Tony delk, Derek Anderson, Walter McCarty , jeff Shepherd and a few others I’m forgetting. Sick squad.
 
That duke team wasn’t even best team of the 90s. Most likely top 5 of the decade tho.
 
.-.
The 99-00 Cincy team you are referencing certainly looked the part of a Final Four team pre-KMart injury. Losing the national player of the year to injury in the conference tourney completely took the wind from their sails, as they dropped 2 of their last 3, including the conference tourney final and NCAA round of 32.
And they still got the number 1 seed I believe. Based on body of work. Pretty sure they got bounced in second round. But that team was tuff before Kmart got hurt
 
Sorry to blow up the board but wow I forgot about those UNLV teams - they wud run duke off the floor. The Laettner, hurley , Grant Hill teams of that era we’re better than 99 duke as well
 
The ONLY argument 98-99 Duke can make is for the Greatest Team to NEVER Win a Championship. And even then they lose to 90-91 UNLV. Teams that didn't win aren't the greatest anythings except 'Greatest Losers' and people should never try to make this into an argument.

If anything these ratings only show you the flaws in the ratings methodology since clearly the ratings do not mimic history.
I think Houston is the best team not to win. 1982,83,84
That team had two NBA HOF players and 5-6 guys that played professionally two or three with NBA stints.
They went to Three final 4’s and were runner up twice losing to the NC all three times
Guy Lewis wan’t just a bad coach he was criminally bad.
Maybe the most talent ever assembled on one team .
 
I think Houston is the best team not to win. 1982,83,84
That team had two NBA HOF players and 5-6 guys that played professionally two or three with NBA stints.
They went to Three final 4’s and were runner up twice losing to the NC all three times
Guy Lewis wan’t just a bad coach he was criminally bad.
Maybe the most talent ever assembled on one team .
 
Ok, after 4 pages of this, i have to watch this game again! I actually have it on vhs tape somewhere, lol. The amazing thing about that team is I believe we beat every team in the top 10 of the final AP poll, amazing!
It's on YouTube. @tcf15 has a link to it as well above.
 
The 99 Duke team wasn't even the best team to not win the national title like others have expressed. The UNLV teams from the Tarkanian era, the Houston teams mentioned and even the fab five Wolverines to name a few. Many media folks fell in love with that team especially Elton Brand that year as dominant as he was but they lacked experience and JC simply out coached his counter part with a veteran team that had been well battle tested and exploited it to their advantage.
 
.-.
The amazing thing about that team is I believe we beat every team in the top 10 of the final AP poll, amazing!
I can't find a post-tournament poll for the AP. The pre-tournament poll was:

1. Duke (W)
2. Michigan State (W)
3. UConn
4. Auburn
5. Maryland
6. Utah
7. Stanford (W)
8. Kentucky
9. St. John's (2-0)
10. Miami (1-1)

So we beat 5 of the Top 10, and had a 6-1 record against them.

It's possible I'm wrong and I can't find a post-tournament one; I wouldn't be surprised to see Ohio State and Gonzaga (2 more wins) hopped in there.
 
Is there a way to find this complete KenPom rankings of NCAA champions? Or does someone need a subscription or something?
 
They crushed teams all year but Fresno st, of all teams, did a decent job keeping up with them in a 93-82 loss. St. Johns lost by 4 as well and cincy was the only other team to beat them. I will always wonder about that cincy team as their star, Martin was injured. That was a final four team prior to injuries in my mind.
Hopefully I'm thinking of this correctly, but I think it was the next season Kenyon suffered that injury in the CUSA tournament against st Louis. I was ready to have my second favorite team give me back to back years rooting for a champ lol. That Melvin Levitt dunk though?!?!
 
Comma does nothing. Still just two. :)

Duke having better players necessarily means UConn has worse.
Duke having a worse coach necessarily means UConn has a better.
But what about option 3! We have better players and better coach? Read much?
 
I can't find a post-tournament poll for the AP. The pre-tournament poll was:

1. Duke (W)
2. Michigan State (W)
3. UConn
4. Auburn
5. Maryland
6. Utah
7. Stanford (W)
8. Kentucky
9. St. John's (2-0)
10. Miami (1-1)

So we beat 5 of the Top 10, and had a 6-1 record against them.

It's possible I'm wrong and I can't find a post-tournament one; I wouldn't be surprised to see Ohio State and Gonzaga (2 more wins) hopped in there.
I might be misremembering, I could have sworn we had beaten the entire final top 10. Fortunately, I’m 100% certain we won it all.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Watched it again, and didn’t almost pass out when we won. We didn’t even play especially well either. Lots of missed free throws and turnovers. Smothering D though.
 
Is there a way to find this complete KenPom rankings of NCAA champions? Or does someone need a subscription or something?

You need a KenPom subscription to access everything.

You can see this past year for free on 2019 Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings

Full stats are available from 2002 on with a subscription. Also, the 'D1-Universe' page has the rankings of every team in the main categories from the year 1997-today without every single stat. Because it is very hard to find stats that account for varying paces of play, this time period is known as the Tempo-Free era.

What we do know is that '99 Duke is the most dominant team since '97. In most years, the champion does not eclipse 34 adjusted efficiency margin. 2015 Kentucky, the team that won it's first 38 games, is tied for the best of this millennium with a 37 adjEM. Wisconsin, who beat them, had an adhEM of 34, which is high even among recent champions. That was a great year in college basketball. National Champion 2001 Duke also achieved a 37 adjEM, featuring Battier, Boozer, and Jay Will. 1998 Duke AND North Carolina (Carter, Jamison, Haywood, etc.) both reached 35 adjEM.

The other recent teams to achieve at least 34 adjEM are:
2008 Kansas, who beat Memphis in the NC on that miracle 3 by Chalmers (and the Rose missed FTs).
2018 Villanova, who steamrolled their way to the title but lost 3 in 6 games in Big East play but were 33-1 otherwise.
2002 Duke, the Jay Williams led team who were ranked #1 in offense and defense in their year, but lost to an insanely underseeded Indiana team in the S16 by 1 (who eventually lost to Maryland in the final) and were up 6 with 2:41 to go in that game but choked it away with 3 mostly unforced turnovers in the final 3 minutes (and Indiana got a few favorable whistles and bounces)..
2000 national champions Michigan St, led by Mateen Cleaves and the Flntstones, who capped off their 3rd straight Final Four.
1997 Kentucky, attempting to repeat following '96's championship, was Pitino's last year coaching Kentucky and they lost in OT of the NC game.

1999 Duke reached an adjEM of 43. Yes, you read that correctly. They're the only team in the tempo-free era to reach above 37 and they hit 43 even with their loss to UConn. This is the reason why people consider them the greatest team of all time. Only 5 other teams even manged 35 adjEM in the last 24 years, and none higher than 37, but Duke in 1999 hit 43.

So if you don't consider them the best team of all time, it's pretty reasonable to conclude they are the best in the tempo-free era, even with losing the title game to Rip and co.

There's a pretty clear and obvious advantage towards pre-prep to pros NBA draft teams. 7 of the 11 teams that broke 33+ adjEM are from the period of 97-2002 and only 4 came between 2003 and 2019. Of course, I would love to see how 1999 Duke compares to the Tark UNLV teams, or Laettner Duke teams, or 1996 Kentucky, or the Wooden UCLA teams, but it's too hard to objectively compare between eras.
 
'99 Duke was the most dominant team in their season of any team of the last 25 years.

That much is not debatable. The box scores exist. They demolished teams that year.

'99 UConn was one of the best defensive teams of all time, though. Irresistible force meets immovable object in a 1 game series. Best memory ever.
UConn beat every common opponent by a larger margin, and then beat Duke head-to-head, so yeah, Duke was better.
 
UConn beat every common opponent by a larger margin, and then beat Duke head-to-head, so yeah, Duke was better.

Duke played 4 more top 15 opponents than UConn did that year and had a scoring margin of +12 vs. +10 in those 11/7 games. But go ahead, go with the smaller sample size.
 
Duke played 4 more top 15 opponents than UConn did that year and had a scoring margin of +12 vs. +10 in those 11/7 games. But go ahead, go with the smaller sample size.
Stick with the loser.
 
.-.
I have a memory that I'm pretty sure is accurate. UConn and Duke played three teams in common that year and UConn won all three by a greater margin (I don't think any of the three were any good). That stat was consistently ignored before the game and has been consistently forgotten since then but it should hold some weight in the discussion of who was the better team.
Michigan State was pretty good. IIRC, UConn in one game beat them by a greater margin than Duke did in two games combined.
 
Duke played 4 more top 15 opponents than UConn did that year and had a scoring margin of +12 vs. +10 in those 11/7 games. But go ahead, go with the smaller sample size.
I said Duke was better.
If anybody wants to make a t-shirt saying "Best team Ever," there's a place up in Onondaga County, NY that will do the job. Maybe they'll give an ACC courtesy discount.
 
I said Duke was better.
If anybody wants to make a t-shirt saying "Best team Ever," there's a place up in Onondaga County, NY that will do the job. Maybe they'll give an ACC courtesy discount.

I've come to agree with @superjohn over the last few years that we won because Ricky Moore was phenomenal and shut down their primary guard creation. Langdon had a good game, but the rest of their guards were pretty bad in that game. Overall, our '99 team is tied for the best defensive team of the last 24 years. We had an awesome team. That doesn't mean our team was as good as '99 Duke's. There's a difference between having a favorable matchup or winning one game and a 12 adjEM differential. Vegas wasn't wrong with making '99 UConn 9.5+ point underdogs depending on where you got the action.

We just won the game. And that is one of the things that makes sports amazing. I don't have to conclude that UConn was the better team to celebrate that win for the last 20 years. 2 different things can be true at the same time: we won that game because we were the better team that night and '99 Duke was a ridiculously incredible team all season that is likely the best team of the the last 24 years. If their adjEM was 35 or 36, it would be fair to conclude otherwise, but 43 adjEM is insane and pretty much unassailable.
 
It’s a foolish argument. We were better and were it not for injuries, good chance we finish undefeated. That’s the big thing that separated us on paper, we had key injuries resulting in two losses. The media doesn’t realize that.
I didn't get it then when we were 10 point underdogs and I don't get it today why people still want to ask if that's the greatest team ever. Its not like we stumbled into the final 4 as a 5th seed with 10 losses that barely held a spot in the top 25 that season. We lost just two games due to as you mentioned a couple of injuries. We were #1 for a good part of the season and top 5 I believe all season. If Duke is in the discussion for best team of all time and we beat them and only had two losses then shouldn't we at the very least be in the discussion?!!!
Let me add I think the 04` team kicks the 99` Duke team tails any day of the week! Now that team once it got going was an absolute juggxrnaught that I put up there with some of the all time great teams. That frontline of Josh,Hilt,Charlie and Ok4 would've made Elton and Shane wet their pants.
 
All of this is fun but what it all comes down to is they lost multiple games which in my opinion disqualifies them and all others with losses from consideration. In the scope of an individual season, all stats are relative to that season alone and have no true bearing on historical perception. Undefeated is undefeated, and only those teams without a loss can truly be considered the best of all time. Everything else is a fans wishful fantasy.
 
But what about option 3! We have better players and better coach? Read much?
????
You presented two options which were actually one. (Duke had better players and a worse coach and we had worse players and a better coach.)

Then there was the "better players and better coach" option you offered, which makes a total of two. I was just messing with you because it was funny that you presented two options but said it was 3.

There were three options, based on your implied logic, though it's not what you typed:

1. Duke has better players and a worse coach.
2. UConn had better players and a worse coach.
3. UConn had better players and a better coach.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,322
Messages
4,563,774
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom