Top 10 teams of the 64-team era

[JasonEvans]

Rivals is ranking the top ten college hoops teams since the NCAA went to the 64-team field in 1985. So far they have revealed only numbers 10 and 9, but a new one gets revealed every day or so. Rivals website is nearly impossible to navigate so I have not been able to find a definitive page with the countdown on it. So far they are up to #7 on the list, but their main countdown page only have numbers 9 and 10 on it. Duuuh!

Anyway, I'll just link Rivals main college hoops page which is where I think they should reveal the rest of the top 10 over the next few days: http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/

So far, the list consists of:
#10- 1988 Oklahoma
#9- 2004 UConn (which was no better than 2004 Duke... what a crock!)
#8- 1994 Arkansas (they were better than 94 Duke, but we shoulda won that championship gme)
#7- 1995 UCLA

This leaves 6 spots left. Clearly, 1992 Duke and 2007 Florida will be ranked (probably 1 and 2, though I hate the back-to-back thing being too heavily weighted).

Rivals says they are going to make an argument for a team or two that did not win the title. I would imagine the possibilities there are 1991 UNLV and 1999 Duke. No way they rank 1991 Duke but might they rank 1999 UConn in addition to 1999 Duke? Hmmmm.

I think they should rank 2001 Duke too, but I bet they don't. That team really gets overlooked too much. It is one of only 3 teams in the 64-team era to win the tourney after being ranked #1 at the end of the regular season (can you name the others? See my sig for the answer).

I think we will see 2005 Carolina get ranked. I am torn on 1993 UNC but they may make it because that is such a famous game (thanks to Chris Webber being a bonehead). Still, I don't think that 1993 Carolina team was all that special (for a national champion). The again, there are just not all that many other contenders. I mean, 2000 Michigan State struggled to beat the weakest final four field ever. I guess they will pick either 1996 or 1998 Kentucky. I think the 1998 team was better, but it was a #2 seed and 1996 was a #1 seed. Of course, as all Duke fans know, 1998 Kentucky should have been a #1 seed (how they ended up in our bracket, I will never know).

Well, that's enough of my opinion.

By the way, Rivals says they are only looking at teams that played in the national title game-- though I can't think of any teams upset before that game who deserve to be in this discussion... maybe one of those mid-90s Kansas teams?

--Jason "the three teams to win the title after being #1 at the end of the regular season were: 1992 Duke, 1995 UCLA, and 2001 Duke" Evans

[VaDukie]

In addition the 2001 team won every tournament game by at least 10 points.

[Tom B.]

By the way, Rivals says they are only looking at teams that played in the national title game-- though I can't think of any teams upset before that game who deserve to be in this discussion... maybe one of those mid-90s Kansas teams?

UNLV's 1991 team jumps immediately to mind -- remember, they lost in the semifinals, not the finals. Kansas in 1997 might be another candidate (they were ranked #1 for 15 straight weeks going into the Tournament).

Can't really think of any others in the 64-team era at the moment. If you want to go back to one year before the 64-team era, though, there's always Carolina in 1984.

[Cameron]

Though we lost, our '99 club better be in the top five. That team was as dominant a basketball collection as there ever has been.

Obviously I am a bit biased here, but I think we should have the top two spots with '92 and '01. Florida of '07 was a product of less competition, IMO. Think about the talent our '01 club had, let alone Laettner, Hill, Hurely and Company: Battier, Williams, Dunleavy, Boozer, Duhon, James... We would have wiped the floor with Noah and company. And it's not even close.

I'd place 2005 Carolina and, though they obviously weren't legal, 1991 Vegas in the top five as well.

Of course, as all Duke fans know, 1998 Kentucky should have been a #1 seed (how they ended up in our bracket, I will never know).

For the same reasons it almost happened in 2001 (save for USC knocking out UK) and 2005 (save for stupid Paul Bunyon and Michigan State). The NCAA is notorious for placing Duke-UK in possible regional final matchups. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Classof06]

I think Duke's 91, 92, 99 squads should be on there. I think Jason Williams is probably the best college player I've ever seen, but I'm still up in the air about the 2001 team. Partly because I think they're behind the 3 teams I just mentioned and no way they put 4 teams from one school in the top 10.

Call me biased, but I don't see that 2005 Carolina team as one of the all-time greats. They were a very good team, obviously, but I thought they lacked a mental toughness about them. Yes, they won a national title, but I just don't consider them one of the 10 dominant teams over the past 20+ years, not a chance. I think they get beat by any of Duke's 3 title teams and definitely the 99 team. I'd probably put 2004 UCONN and 05-07 Florida over them, too. I saw them play in person once that season in Cameron; we beat them at home and lost to them at Chapel Hill because we choked quite frankly (lost a 9 point lead in the last 3 minutes). And I truly believe that in the 2004-2005 season, UNC was a substantially better team. Chalk it up to the mystique of the rivalry, but overall (beyond the Duke games) I'm just not sold.

I do think the 1996 Kentucky team, with the HOF coach in Pitino and 9 (yes, nine) future NBA players, has to be on that list.

[greybeard]

One of the Georgetwon teams during the Ewing years; they did have 64 teams back then, right?

grey "did I tell you I don't remember so good anymore" beard

[VaDukie]

The 2005 UNC team has no place on that list. Dominant teams don't lose games to Santa Clara. Period. If they're ranked higher than 2001 Duke then the list in my opinion is a complete joke.

The 2001 Duke team, that lost 3 of its 4 games by a combined 6 points. The 4th loss to Maryland was by 11, but that was not indicative of how close the game was due to Maryland making a lot of free throws in the last minute. Plus there's no shame in losing to that Maryland team since they were basically the same team that won it all the next year.

[JasonEvans]

1991 UNLV will not be on the list because Rivals is only looking at teams that made the final game. We took care of that for them

I wonder about 1985 Georgetown. If not for Nova throwing a (nearly) perfect game at them, that club goes down as one of the all-time greats.

How many final game losers could you put in a top ten? 1988 Oklahoma, 1985 Georgetown, 1999 Duke are all strong possibilities. What about 1986 Duke or 1997 Kentucky (a team that came darn close to giving Kentucky a 3-peat). The only other possibility would be 2005 Illinois.

-Jason "losers who were better than the winners... an interesting debate" Evans

[rtnorthrup]

I believe that the Oklahoma team they have at number 10 did not win the championship, they lost to Danny Manning if I remember.

[rtnorthrup]

Also, I would be shocked if the 1990 UNLV team isnt on the list.

[greybeard]

I believe that the Oklahoma team they have at number 10 did not win the championship, they lost to Danny Manning if I remember.

Where is Danny's daddy coaching these days. Somebody please ask my boy, Larry "you can get farther with great players and great coaching than you can with just great coaching" Brown.

[Cameron]

I agree with the poster above who said 1996 Kentucky should be on the list. I completely forgot about them. That was one hell of a team.

Just simply knock '05 Carolina down the ladder

I'm ceratinly not an expert, but here's my top five:

1. 1992 Duke
2. 2001 Duke
3. 1996 Kentucky
4. 1999 Duke
5. 1985 Georgetown (even with the loss to Nova, they still stack up better than any other winner in the 64-team ear IMO)

***Note that three Duke teams will never be placed in the top five. That would be blasphemy, for sure***

I guess you could throw 1999 UConn and, like I said earlier, 2005 Carolina into the discussion, but I'm not sure they could challenge the above teams. 1990 Vegas would be the only other legit option. And since Duke will not be fielding three clubs in the top five, the Runnin' Rebels will probably be there.

[yancem]

I think Duke's 91, 92, 99 squads should be on there. I think Jason Williams is probably the best college player I've ever seen, but I'm still up in the air about the 2001 team. Partly because I think they're behind the 3 teams I just mentioned and no way they put 4 teams from one school in the top 10.

How can you put 91' ahead of 01'? Yes they beat UNLV which was an amazing upset and game for that matter but even by Coack K's admission 91' was suppose to be a year away from competing for the NC. They had an amazing tourney run but spent much of the year ranked 6-10 and even had a stretch of 2 weeks outside of the top 10. They also didn't win the ACC Tourney. 01' by comparison was never ranked lower than 4 and spent most of the season 1 or 2 and won every game in the tourney by 10 or more points and one the ACC regular season and Tourney Championships.

[BD80]

-Jason "losers who were better than the winners... an interesting debate" Evans

That would be Carolina and every single team that beat Carolina. Just ask any tar heel.

[Cali-Duke]

They will put Duke 1992, Florida 2007, and Kentucky 1996 in the top 4...

As for the last of the top four, I hope they put Duke 1999. They didn't win the national championship, which is the main thing going against them, but they were the most talented Duke team and dominated all of their opponents till the championship game.

[Cameron]

1. 1992 Duke
2. 2001 Duke
3. 1996 Kentucky
4. 1999 Duke
5. 1985 Georgetown (even with the loss to Nova, they still stack up better than any other winner in the 64-team ear IMO)

***Note that three Duke teams will never be placed in the top five. That would be blasphemy, for sure***

I guess you could throw 1999 UConn and, like I said earlier, 2005 Carolina into the discussion, but I'm not sure they could challenge the above teams.

Ok, after just realizing what I wrote yesterday, I now feel a little dumb. Obviously '99 UConn could challenge '99 Duke. Not sure why I wrote that, but, for those of you who noticed that, I just wanted to apologize for my stupidity. I guess what I meant to say was that, eight times out of ten, '99 UConn wouldn't top our '99 squad, and therefore they should be placed ahead in the top five.

[mapei]

It bears mention that '85 Georgetown would have been a repeat national champion had they beaten Nova. They demolished #2 St. John's in the semis.

You can also make a case for Phi Slamma Jamma, which went to the finals two years in a row (but I'm not sure when the 64-team era began, so thay may not qualify).

But for my money UNLV 91 (also would have been a repeat champ) and Duke 99 were the best teams not to win, probably in that order, with Georgetown 85 coming in third.

Duke 2001 is my *favorite* of the championship teams.

[Jarhead]

As of now Carolina 2005 is #6, and Georgetown 1985 is #5. Only 4 more places for all of our teams.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I noticed a glaring factual error within the first five sentences of the Carolina link. It is an interesting debate, but I'm not sure Rivals should necessarily be considered an authority on these matter.

[mapei]

I just don't see the argument for Carolina 2005. And it isn't anti-UNC bias in my case; I actually like them when they aren't outshining Duke. But I just don't see that team as one of the all-time greats. Duke 99, Duke 92, UNLV 91, Florida 07 are all much better. Heck, I even think MD 02 could have beaten them; certainly Houston with Hakeem and Clyde could have.