The Athletic ranks 2024 UConn championship the best over last 40 years

[boog204]

I have rewatched the 2H of UConn-Bama last year a few times because it was the only "close" game. I believe it was tied 56-56! And UConn still won by 14 lol. Just amazing. Bama and St. John's (BET) gave us the best games in tourney play.

The Bama game was the toughest of the run. It's weird to think back that we were up 33-29 against SDST with three or four minutes left in the first half and won that game by 30. Last year's team was just relentless, and at some point, they would just bury you. It almost made the championship game anti-climatic for me because even though it was only a two-point game with a few minutes left in the first, you just knew our run was coming. And then, out of nowhere, we're up 17.

 

[gsmooth]

"In the final 13 games, only 2 opponents came within single digits." Insane.

I was always so nervous last year for our games. This sounds weird but as a fan it's almost like I felt the pressure of witnessing the greatest team of all time and I was just terrified that they wouldn't finish the job. I wonder if the players knew they were making history as the season went on...

Oh I get it. With this year's team, we as fans will be pulling for the underdogs on many levels, unless UConn wins the next 5 games before the NCAAT.

Want to hear a crazy fact from last year's team?

When they played defense on any possession in the NCAAT last year, they never played defense where they were trailing by more than 1 possession in any of the 6 games.

 

[djct1999]

It’s practically impossible to wrap your head around how dominant last years team was. You look at various stats and metrics and marvel how little sense they make. They were that absurdly good.

It was the perfectly constructed college roster.

 

[Scrutineer]

They use factors like dominance of NCAA run, difficulty of NCAA Tournament path, overall win percentage, talent, etc.

It's a nice, long, enjoyable read for UConn fans

Here are UConn championship ranks according to them: 2024 (1st rank), 1999 (13), 2004 (25), 2023 (32), 2011 (35), 2014 (38).

Here's the link to the article (may need subscription):

Ranking 40 years of men’s NCAA Tournament champions, from 2024 UConn to 1985 Villanova

The best of the best separated themselves with their season-long dominance and emphatic victories in their six-game NCAA Tournament journey.

www.nytimes.com

Here's an excerpt:
The Huskies check every box you could ask for in a dominant team. They won the Big East regular season title by four games in a conference that featured a No. 2 seed (Marquette) and a No. 3 seed (Creighton). They also won the conference tournament at Madison Square Garden. They went 37-3 overall, and against a respectable run of opponents in the Big Dance (i.e., no upstart Cinderellas), they won every game by 14 or more points. The Huskies accumulated the largest total margin of victory (plus-140 points in six NCAA Tournament games) for any of the 39 champions ranked in this exercise. In UConn’s final 13 games, only two opponents even came within single digits. That is dominance on full display.

UConn lost only once all season at full strength. One NBA lottery pick, Stephon Castle, missed the Huskies’ loss at Kansas, and fellow top-10 selection Donovan Clingan managed just 14 minutes before sitting out the remainder of a loss at Seton Hall.

From a talent perspective, UConn is right up there with any champion. Clingan, aka “Kling Cong,” is arguably one of the best college rim protectors ever, and Castle was an easy one-and-done NBA prospect. Point guard Tristen Newton, the Huskies’ third NBA Draft choice on the roster, was a consensus first-team All-American and a returning starter from the 2023 UConn title team. Forward Alex Karaban was also a key starter on that 2023 team, and shooting guard Cam Spencer posted the highest individual offensive rating in the country (per KenPom).

Very interesting, BUT, if you title it "Rating 40 Years of men's NCAA Tournament Champions" why give so much consideration to regular season records or league championships or talent? If you read the rationale for the rankings and how 2023 UConn was rated #32 while 1990 UNLV was rated #12 it seems there was an agenda.

Of course I'm biased, but having a low seed, a difficult path to the title (higher total of all seeds played) and greater margin of victory seem more important when developing such a ranking than regular season record and talent level.

Compare 2023 UConn and 1990 UNLV. UConn had 8 regular season losses while UNLV had 5, but in the NCAA tournament UNLV had a total margin of victory of 112 facing seeds totalling 54, while UConn's total had a total margin of victory of 120 facing seeds totalling 39. Larger margin of victory for UConn even thought they faced more highly rated opponents.

I'd argue that a factor like the season's winning percentage or some other arbitrary factor could be used to move certain teams up or down to achieve the ranking you want some schools to obtain.

Not sure what to make of it, but the only teams who beat opponents with a combined seed total of less than 30 were UConn in 2014 (28) and Villanova in 1985 (19) and 2016 (29).

The 2004 UConn team may have been downgraded due to the high combined seed total which indicates their path to the NC was relatively easy.

 

[6Nattys4Us]

What other team in history had this much talent 1-5?

1. Tristen Newton - AP All-American first team
2. Cam Spencer - highest offensive efficiency numbers in NCAA
3. Stephon Castle - elite defender, offensive creator and driver, good ball handler
4. Alex Karaban - could shoot, defend, help on O and D - true glue guy
5. Donovan Clingan - #2 Center in NCAA (next to Edey)

 

[Excalibur]

The Athletic posted a good read on this year's team

LOL at Hurley channeling Nate from Ted Lasso.

 

[SubbaBub]

2004 is underrated and it bothers me that 2011 and 2014 are looked at as flukes. 2011 rolled every non-confernence and neutral court opponent.

Even 2024, no one was talking about them until just before the BE tournament. It was all Purdue and a bunch of others. The dominance chatter didn't even start until they embarrassed Illinois.

That said, you can't argue too much with his rankings. 92 Duke and 98 UK were beasts, I'd thrown in 2009 UNC as the top tier. 1999 UConn is fairly placed though people still overrate that Duke win as some major upset.

 

[AzzisBraids]

2021 Baylor Bears were a defensive nightmare for teams and chopped the Zags in the final like a spicy tuna roll

 

[SubbaBub]

What other team in history had this much talent 1-5?

1. Tristen Newton - AP All-American first team
2. Cam Spencer - highest offensive efficiency numbers in NCAA
3. Stephon Castle - elite defender, offensive creator and driver, good ball handler
4. Alex Karaban - could shoot, defend, help on O and D - true glue guy
5. Donovan Clingan - #2 Center in NCAA (next to Edey)

A bunch. 2006 and they crashed out. A bunch of UK, Duke, and UNC teams too.

2024 was the best because of how well they used what talent they had and how versatile they were. Dan was right when he said they were bulletproof by the end. Dan had at least one guaranteed mismatch and the ability to shutdown whatever you thought your advantages were, see Shannon; Edey.

 

[RuffRuff]

A bunch. 2006 and they crashed out. A bunch of UK, Duke, and UNC teams too.

2024 was the best because of how well they used what talent they had and how versatile they were. Dan was right when he said they were bulletproof by the end. Dan had at least one guaranteed mismatch and the ability to shutdown whatever you thought your advantages were, see Shannon; Edey.

That 2006 team wasn’t even close to having the talent last years team had. You can spin me the NBA draft selections all you’d like, man for man not even close and they had nothing like Cling & Steph.

Many of those Duke and UK teams were very young.

 

[Chin Diesel]

2004 team remains criminally underrated.

2024, 1999 and 2004 were all elite and dominant throughout the entire season.

 

[auror]

Very interesting, BUT, if you title it "Rating 40 Years of men's NCAA Tournament Champions" why give so much consideration to regular season records or league championships or talent? If you read the rationale for the rankings and how 2023 UConn was rated #32 while 1990 UNLV was rated #12 it seems there was an agenda.

Of course I'm biased, but having a low seed, a difficult path to the title (higher total of all seeds played) and greater margin of victory seem more important when developing such a ranking than regular season record and talent level.

Compare 2023 UConn and 1990 UNLV. UConn had 8 regular season losses while UNLV had 5, but in the NCAA tournament UNLV had a total margin of victory of 112 facing seeds totalling 54, while UConn's total had a total margin of victory of 120 facing seeds totalling 39. Larger margin of victory for UConn even thought they faced more highly rated opponents.

I'd argue that a factor like the season's winning percentage or some other arbitrary factor could be used to move certain teams up or down to achieve the ranking you want some schools to obtain.

Not sure what to make of it, but the only teams who beat opponents with a combined seed total of less than 30 were UConn in 2014 (28) and Villanova in 1985 (19) and 2016 (29).

The 2004 UConn team may have been downgraded due to the high combined seed total which indicates their path to the NC was relatively easy.

"Champions" is a subset of teams. When ranking which is the best, you're not necessarily ranking how well they fit that subset. For example, if you are "Ranking the Teams That Didn't Win a Title", you're not likely to rank them literally based on how close they were to not winning the title, rather by how strong the team was overall. Same here.

 

[Excalibur]

That 2006 team wasn’t even close to having the talent last years team had. You can spin me the NBA draft selections all you’d like, man for man not even close and they had nothing like Cling & Steph.

Many of those Duke and UK teams were very young.

2006 may have had a similar overall talent level, but the pieces didn't fit together nearly as well. It was a majorly flawed team with a weak backcourt beyond Williams and Rashad.

 

[blkknight1]

the thing about last years team was that they just wore teams down at the end of the day. Teams had to defend just about the entire shot clock but they also had to run offense for almost the length of the shot clock. Last years team made teams play 60 seconds at a time.

I also think the 2004 team doesn’t get the respect it deserves they weee preseason #1 people forget Emeka missed a couple of games that year because of his back. When he was on the floor though and at like at least 80% that team was scary. I just watched that national semi this morning while on the treadmill. UConn was on its way to just blowing the doors off of Duke before emeka got in foul trouble. As I also recall that tournament all their games besides the Duke game were over by half time.

 

[aburks41]

Oh I get it. With this year's team, we as fans will be pulling for the underdogs on many levels, unless UConn wins the next 5 games before the NCAAT.

Want to hear a crazy fact from last year's team?

When they played defense on any possession in the NCAAT last year, they never played defense where they were trailing by more than 1 possession in any of the 6 games.

Even further, we never trailed in the 2nd half of any tournament game after the Iona and Saint Mary’s games. 10 straight games in the NCAAT never trailing in the 2nd half. That type of dominance will never be seen again.

 

[6Nattys4Us]

2006 may have had a similar overall talent level, but the pieces didn't fit together nearly as well. It was a majorly flawed team with a weak backcourt beyond Williams and Rashad.

2005-2006 was talented but other than Rudy Gay, no truly elite (e.g., top 5 or AP All American). Adrien was a frosh, and Armstrong, Boone, Williams, Anderson, Brown had talent, but not All-American talent (e.g., Newton), or elite defense and lottery pick like Castle. And none of them played tennis with 7 blocks in any game, let alone Elite 8. And Spencer was a unicorn last year: best offensive efficiency numbers in the country.

They had talent, but not 2024 talent.

 

[HuskyHawk]

What other team in history had this much talent 1-5?

1. Tristen Newton - AP All-American first team
2. Cam Spencer - highest offensive efficiency numbers in NCAA
3. Stephon Castle - elite defender, offensive creator and driver, good ball handler
4. Alex Karaban - could shoot, defend, help on O and D - true glue guy
5. Donovan Clingan - #2 Center in NCAA (next to Edey)

Several I suspect. Including some that didn't win a championship. Certainly, some of the old UCLA teams and Carolina and Duke teams.

 

[Gurleyman]

That 2006 team wasn’t even close to having the talent last years team had. You can spin me the NBA draft selections all you’d like, man for man not even close and they had nothing like Cling & Steph.

Many of those Duke and UK teams were very young.

I’ve beaten this one to death over the years - but the 2006 team is a myth. We limped into the postseason and never stopped limping. We were tied with a sub .500 Louisville team with a minute to go at home in the finale. Then lost to Syracuse in a 1-8 game in the big east quarters. Then were down 12 to Albany in a 1-16 game. Then barely beat a pedestrian Kentucky team. Then needed a miracle to beat Washington. Then lost to George Mason. They just weren’t that good.

Rudy was the only guy who stuck in the NBA … and he wasn’t all that great a college player really. Some of it is that he really didn’t have a true alpha role with the veterans around him - but 15 ppg on 32 percent 3 point shooting with a negative assist to turnover ratio is kinda meh. He wasn’t ever going to carry us.

A healthy and unsuspended AJ Price as a sophomore may have changed things.

 

[uconnfan68]

If we had Jerome Dyson in 2009, we'd have 7 NCs.

 

[Samoo]

The gap between last year and the year before doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[mlpavela]

Here to shout out 2014. I understand the ranking system used the entire season, BUT, they do correctly note: "En route to a championship, Ollie defeated Hall of Fame coaches Jay Wright, Tom Izzo, Billy Donovan and John Calipari."

 

[RuffRuff]

I’ve beaten this one to death over the years - but the 2006 team is a myth. We limped into the postseason and never stopped limping. We were tied with a sub .500 Louisville team with a minute to go at home in the finale. Then lost to Syracuse in a 1-8 game in the big east quarters. Then were down 12 to Albany in a 1-16 game. Then barely beat a pedestrian Kentucky team. Then needed a miracle to beat Washington. Then lost to George Mason. They just weren’t that good.

Rudy was the only guy who stuck in the NBA … and he wasn’t all that great a college player really. Some of it is that he really didn’t have a true alpha role with the veterans around him - but 15 ppg on 32 percent 3 point shooting with a negative assist to turnover ratio is kinda meh. We wasn’t ever going to carry us.

A healthy and unsuspended AJ Price as a sophomore may have changed things.

Lot of betas on that team, not a guy that felt like he hated losing. Can't understate the collective personality of a team is in shaping a roster. Last years team had 3 true alphas and 2 stabilizers with IQ across the board. I feel like you need at least one, ideally two alphas to be really good on any given year.

One hoops roster eval would be what the right blend of alphas and stabilizers are. Guys that are going to keep the fire burning, energize, hold accountability and lead, along with guys that keep the team calm, connected & running (glue guys). Players that don't fit either category really don't belong in a starting 5, I'd call them specialists that can come off the bench for breathers and match up situations.

 

[6Nattys4Us]

Several I suspect. Including some that didn't win a championship. Certainly, some of the old UCLA teams and Carolina and Duke teams.

Dunno...

1. UCLA legend teams were either 1 or 2 stars deep (Lew Alcindor or Walton and Wilkes but that's it).

2. Duke with Laettner and Hurley, etc. were great, but they had no shut down lottery pick defender plus an All American plus a dominant Center and then there's Cam who they don't have anyone to stack with.

3. UNC would be Jordan's frosh year ('81-'82) but as a frosh we can say ~Castle. Jimmy Black was no Tristen Newton, and Worthy was really good but was not Cam in leading the NCAA in offensive efficiency. Perkins was not Clingan, and maybe Doherty and Karaban are a wash.

4. UNLV is intriguing but they were more a big 3

5. Michigan's fab 5 was two top ten frosh (Webber, Rose), then 3 guys in the 20s (Jackson, King, Howard). But they didn't even gel as a team until Feb when all started and other than Webber, Rose, and Howard, you don't have comparables to our '23-'24 team.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

And none of them played tennis with 7 blocks in any game, let alone Elite 8.

Actually Boone did it once and Hilton did it 5(!!!) times. With the highest being 9 and only one of those times being 7 lol.

Rudy’s game high for blocks that season was also 6. There’s a reason we led the country in blocked shots like 9 seasons in a row or something crazy like that. Lol

 

[caw]

For a good part of last year I would have considered the '23 team's ceiling to be higher given how they rolled over everyone when playing well, even if 24 was a better and more consistent squad overall. Looking back it is so clear that we upgraded over each of the departing players from 23.

Castle was an upgrade over Jackson
Clingan was an upgrade over Sanogo
Spencer was an upgrade over Hawkins

The only downgrade was the backup center position (Clingan to Johnson). It's hard to imagine losing 2 NBA regulars and a fringe NBA player who was a dominant college big, and getting better across the board.

The 2023 team was heads and shoulders better off the bench, not just Clingan. Diarra and Samson were great off the bench but between Clingan, Joey, Nahiem and Diarra all getting 10+ minutes a game that team truly wore other teams out and kept everyone fresh.