PDA

View Full Version : Top 10 teams of the 64-team era



JasonEvans
08-03-2007, 09:31 AM
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
08-03-2007, 10:43 AM
In addition the 2001 team won every tournament game by at least 10 points.

Tom B.
08-03-2007, 12:12 PM
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
08-03-2007, 12:54 PM
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
08-03-2007, 01:50 PM
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
08-03-2007, 02:05 PM
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
08-03-2007, 02:24 PM
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
08-03-2007, 03:02 PM
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
08-03-2007, 03:14 PM
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
08-03-2007, 03:15 PM
Also, I would be shocked if the 1990 UNLV team isnt on the list.

greybeard
08-03-2007, 03:27 PM
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
08-03-2007, 06:06 PM
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
08-03-2007, 06:08 PM
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
08-03-2007, 09:42 PM
-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
08-04-2007, 01:07 PM
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
08-04-2007, 01:46 PM
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
08-04-2007, 01:57 PM
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
08-04-2007, 06:40 PM
As of now (http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=1146&CID=696681) Carolina 2005 is #6, and Georgetown 1985 is #5. Only 4 more places for all of our teams.

Ralph-Wiggum
08-04-2007, 08:18 PM
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
08-04-2007, 10:49 PM
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.

merry
08-05-2007, 09:09 AM
"Even" MD 02? I remember reading after the 2002 final four how that Maryland team was one of the most dominant tournamant teams ever since they never had any close calls on their route to the championship and beat all their opponents by at least 10 points which almost never happens...oh wait, Duke did that just one year before.

Still, Maryland had three senior starters including an amazing leader in Dixon, a 3 year starter at the point in Blake, a lottery pick in Wilcox...they stumbled in the ACC tournament but did win the regular season and looked pretty much like a team of destiny in the NCAAs. I've never given any thought to whether I'd put them ahead of UNC 2005 or not, but why not?

But being Maryland they don't get no respect.

mgtr
08-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Maryland gets all the respect they deserve. Gary Williams probably gets more respect than he deserves.

Cameron
08-05-2007, 02:04 PM
When Maryland starts winning consistently, instead of two years in a row every three years, then we'll talk about respect.

Jarhead
08-05-2007, 04:58 PM
Just so you know, Florida 2007 comes in at #4. That leaves 3 places for Duke, Duke, and Duke.

BDevilU
08-05-2007, 06:14 PM
This is the same website that omits Coach K from their current Top 10 coaches, according to their Power Rankings.

The only Duke player listed as Top 10 at his respective position is Greg Paulus, who creeps in at #10 among PGs.

Grain of salt, anyone?

ArkieDukie
08-05-2007, 06:15 PM
If I were ranking the Duke teams with regard to which ones I liked best, it would be a tossup between 1992 and 2001. I'm not sure I could decide. As great as Jason Williams was, I am still in awe of Bobby Hurley's court vision. Maybe I'm just biased because I was at Duke during the Hurley era. :)

As an aside, I think that the 1990 Arkansas team (the one that Duke beat in the semis) was better than the 1994 team that won the National Championship. That was the team with Oliver Miller, Todd Day, and Lee Mayberry - the one that came pretty darn close to beating UNLV during the regular season, IIRC. As for '94, I still say that Duke would've won if Scottie Thurman hadn't hit the 3 over Tony Lang. And the Hogs would've repeated in 1995 if Nolan had pulled a Coach K and yanked his starters in favor of players who were willing to rebound.

Arkie "Nowhere near Post-o-Matic status" Dukie

crote
08-05-2007, 08:37 PM
That was the team with Oliver Miller, Todd Day, and Lee Mayberry - the one that came pretty darn close to beating UNLV during the regular season, IIRC.

You may be interested in seeing this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMsyULkfxzc) if you haven't already. Also this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lwzLZc8gs20) gem from the same game.

Todd Day was the man.

SilkyJ
08-05-2007, 08:58 PM
This is the same website that omits Coach K from their current Top 10 coaches, according to their Power Rankings.

The only Duke player listed as Top 10 at his respective position is Greg Paulus, who creeps in at #10 among PGs.

Grain of salt, anyone?

Fair enough regarding how they rank coach K. But who else would you say at Duke is one of the ten best players at his respective position? The only person who I would put is Demarcus, and its not like he's way ahead of a bunch of guys....

ArkieDukie
08-05-2007, 09:13 PM
You may be interested in seeing this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMsyULkfxzc) if you haven't already. Also this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lwzLZc8gs20) gem from the same game.

Todd Day was the man.

I thought the game was in Fayetteville, but I forgot that it was in The Barn. Those were the days.

A few years ago I went to see the AR RimRockers play so I could watch Todd Day and Oliver Miller again. Todd Day wouldn't play D - his game consisted of running down the court, getting into position, and hollering for the ball. Oliver actually played both ends of the court, but he stayed under the basket most of the time. He was usually the last one down the court, too (surprise, surprise...). Of the two, I was more impressed with The BIG O. (note the emphasis on big...)

gethlives
08-06-2007, 10:14 AM
Not that I would expect much respect for Carolin on a Duke site (frankly it would be a little disturbing if it there were) but I think you all truly underestimate how good that team was. First off, remember they lost to Santa Clara without Raymond Felton in the middle of November, I don't think that should be considered much of a black mark. Second, they had a great collection of talent that was molded into a highly successful team. Sean May was one of the best college players in recent years, (I defy you to name any player in recent years who has had a more dominant NCAA tourney and final month of the regular season. Think of the final game in Chapel Hill against Duke, 26 pts and 24 rebounds). Third, yes they could have been easily swept by Duke, but also remember that their best scorer, McCants was out for the game in Chapel Hill. 4th, they beat the consensus #1 team in the finals, which most champions have not had to do.

I am not arguing that they are the best team in the last 25 or so years by any means, but to say that they shouldn't enter into the discussion seems silly. I think people have bought into the media line on them that they were a talented group that wasn't a good team. They only lost four times all year, which I think is rather impressive.

Jarhead
08-06-2007, 10:27 AM
Just so you know, Kentucky 1996 comes in at #3. That leaves 2 places for Duke, and Duke. Somehow, BBQ comes to mind.

JasonEvans
08-06-2007, 11:36 AM
Just so you know, Kentucky 1996 comes in at #3. That leaves 2 places for Duke, and Duke. Somehow, BBQ comes to mind.

This means 1992 Duke and 2007 Florida will take the final 2 spots. That was pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway.

Ridiculous that 1999 Duke is left out. Had they hit one more basket against UConn they'd be one of the all-time legends in college basketball. That was the most dominant team of the past 20 years and it is not even close. They played a tough schedule (RPI ranked it the #1 schedule in the nation) and ran over it by ridiculous margins. Maryland was a top 5 teams that year (in both Sagarin and RPI). Duke whacked them by 20 points both times they played. I am fairly sure that no team has achieved a Sagarin or RPI ranking as high as that Duke team did. Leaving them out is absurd.

I know many Duke fans will argue about 2001 Duke, which was a great team and has a solid argument for being one of the top 10 of the past 25 years, but it is not as much of an open and shut case for that club as it is for 1999 Duke. A list that does not include them is not worth the bits and bytes it is written upon.

-Jason "now I am angry that I even started this thread and alerted anyone to the list" Evans

Jarhead
08-06-2007, 12:46 PM
This means 1992 Duke and 2007 Florida will take the final 2 spots. That was pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway.


Florida 2007 came in at #4, so maybe Duke can take the last two spots, #1 and #2. We won't know until Wednesday, I guess. If we don't get our way here's the email address for complaints: bmcclellan@rivals.com

VaDukie
08-06-2007, 01:07 PM
1988 Oklahoma and 1985 Georgetown took up the two spots given to teams that did not win it all so 1999 Duke will not be included. I don't know how 1988 Oklahoma is even considered. Am I missing something here?

Classof06
08-06-2007, 01:29 PM
Not that I would expect much respect for Carolin on a Duke site (frankly it would be a little disturbing if it there were) but I think you all truly underestimate how good that team was. First off, remember they lost to Santa Clara without Raymond Felton in the middle of November, I don't think that should be considered much of a black mark. Second, they had a great collection of talent that was molded into a highly successful team. Sean May was one of the best college players in recent years, (I defy you to name any player in recent years who has had a more dominant NCAA tourney and final month of the regular season. Think of the final game in Chapel Hill against Duke, 26 pts and 24 rebounds). Third, yes they could have been easily swept by Duke, but also remember that their best scorer, McCants was out for the game in Chapel Hill. 4th, they beat the consensus #1 team in the finals, which most champions have not had to do.

I am not arguing that they are the best team in the last 25 or so years by any means, but to say that they shouldn't enter into the discussion seems silly. I think people have bought into the media line on them that they were a talented group that wasn't a good team. They only lost four times all year, which I think is rather impressive.

I didn't realize McCants didn't play that 2nd game in Chapel Hill. That being said, McCants rarely had good games against Duke; I saw him play at Cameron 3 times and he didn't impress me once. I think every national champion of the 64 team era innately enters the discussion. The 2005 Carolina team was a great team, it would be crazy to propose otherwise. Personally, however, I just don't see them as one of the best teams of the past 25 years. We'll obviously never know for sure, but I think many of the other national title teams would have beaten them.

Classof06
08-06-2007, 01:40 PM
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.

They were two totally different eras of college basketball, so it's hard to compare them by their accomplishments against different competition. They're both great teams, at this point I think it becomes personal preference. The fact that they spent the season ranked 6-10 or didn't win the ACC tournament doesn't mean much when they were named National Champions at the end of the year. Again, I consider J-Will probably the best single CBB player I've ever seen, and I don't think anyone can deny what Battier brought to the table, but when you look at the sum of the parts, from top to bottom, 91 wins out IMO. Just one man's opinion...

hondoheel
08-06-2007, 02:51 PM
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.

Hard to compare those 2 teams, since K would never have had his team travel cross country to play on an opponent's home court.

VaDukie
08-06-2007, 03:34 PM
Hard to compare those 2 teams, since K would never have had his team travel cross country to play on an opponent's home court.

Well the Stanford game wasn't at their place but it was in Oakland - about as close to home court as you can get.

mapei
08-06-2007, 06:40 PM
Also, didn't we have a home-and-home with UCLA at one point?

>I defy you to name any player in recent years who has had a more dominant NCAA tourney and final month of the regular season. Think of the final game in Chapel Hill against Duke, 26 pts and 24 rebounds

Sean May was indeed awesome during that stretch. But Jeff Green came damn close last year. The numbers were lower (though I would bet assists and steals were higher for Jeff) because of the system GTown plays, and unfortunately Jeff did not come up big in the final four. But the Hoyas won 9 of their last 10 regular season games, the Big East tourney and their first four NCAA games - with far less "on paper" talent than UNC - in large part because of Green's amazing play. He earned honors for Big East player of the year, Big East tournamant MVP, and east regional MVP.

And, though it's been a while, Grant Hill and Danny Manning also had incredible "put the team on his back" runs to the title. SM fully deserves his props, but I wouldn't distance him so far from the rest of the field of players who have come up big in the late-season as to use the "defy" word.

gethlives
08-07-2007, 07:52 AM
Also, didn't we have a home-and-home with UCLA at one point?

>I defy you to name any player in recent years who has had a more dominant NCAA tourney and final month of the regular season. Think of the final game in Chapel Hill against Duke, 26 pts and 24 rebounds

Sean May was indeed awesome during that stretch. But Jeff Green came damn close last year. The numbers were lower (though I would bet assists and steals were higher for Jeff) because of the system GTown plays, and unfortunately Jeff did not come up big in the final four. But the Hoyas won 9 of their last 10 regular season games, the Big East tourney and their first four NCAA games - with far less "on paper" talent than UNC - in large part because of Green's amazing play. He earned honors for Big East player of the year, Big East tournamant MVP, and east regional MVP.

And, though it's been a while, Grant Hill and Danny Manning also had incredible "put the team on his back" runs to the title. SM fully deserves his props, but I wouldn't distance him so far from the rest of the field of players who have come up big in the late-season as to use the "defy" word.

Interesting points about Green, Hill and Manning. As a Carolina fan, I have of course blocked out all memory of the Georgetown game so I'll leave it to others to discuss Green's performance.

I agree that Hill and Manning had equal to or better than May's end of year performance, so my word choice of defy was inappropriate. I think the difference with May was that not only did he have an awesome performance he did so on a team that had a ton of other great players. So while 1988 Kansas and 94 Duke were basically one-man teams that overachieved, the 05 Heels were one of the best teams because they had both a transcendent college player and so many other weapons.

77devil
08-07-2007, 08:48 AM
I'm guessing they will pick 1990 UNLV as #1.

Tom B.
08-07-2007, 09:15 AM
I'm guessing they will pick 1990 UNLV as #1.

That would be funny, because the 1990 UNLV team was ranked #1 in the AP poll exactly once that season -- the preseason poll.

Yes, they won the national championship game in a dominant fashion. But they were not a dominant team for the duration of the season -- not the way Duke was in 1992. I'd argue that the 1991 version of UNLV was more dominant, but they don't get considered for this ranking because they lost in the semifinals, not the finals.

I'm wondering if they might put UConn's 1999 team at #1. If I recall correctly, they only lost a couple of games, and those occurred when one or two starters were hurt. Also, they beat the only other team to be ranked #1 that year in the national title game.

BDevilU
08-08-2007, 03:31 PM
Top 10 Teams of the 64 Era

1. UNLV 1990
Final record: 35-5
Non-conference record: 19-3
Double-digit victories: 24
Average victory margin: 17.8
NBA first-round picks: Three (Greg Anthony, Stacey Augmon, Larry Johnson)

2. Duke 1992
Final record: 34-2
Non-conference record: 18-0
Double-digit victories: 26
Average victory margin: 15.5
NBA first-round picks: Four (Grant Hill, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, Cherokee Parks)

3. Kentucky 1996
Final record: 34-2
Non-conference record: 16-1
Double-digit victories: 30
Average victory margin: 24.0
NBA first-round picks: Six (Antoine Walker, Tony Delk, Walter McCarty, Ron Mercer, Derek Anderson, Nazr Mohammed)

4. Florida 2007
Final record: 35-5
Non-conference record: 19-2
Double-digit victories: 25
Average victory margin: 20.8
NBA first-round picks: Three (Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah)

5. Georgetown 1985
Final record: 35-3
Non-conference record: 17-0
Double-digit victories: 28
Average victory margin: 18.6
NBA first-round picks: Two (Patrick Ewing, Reggie Williams)

6. North Carolina 2005
Final record: 33-4
Non-conference record: 19-2
Double-digit victories: 25
Average victory margin: 20.7
NBA first-round picks: Four (Marvin Williams, Sean May, Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants)

7. UCLA 1995
Final record: 32-1
Non-conference record: 15-0
Double-digit victories: 22
Average victory margin: 15.5
NBA first-round picks: Two (Ed O'Bannon, George Zidek)

8. Arkansas 1994
Final record: 31-3
Non-conference record: 17-1
Double-digit victories: 20
Average victory margin: 25.0
NBA first-round picks: One (Corliss Williamson)

9. Connecticut 2004
Final record: 33-6
Non-conference record: 11-2
Double-digit victories: 24
Average victory margin: 19.4
NBA first-round picks: Six (Emeka Okafor, Ben Gordon, Josh Boone, Marcus Williams, Hilton Armstrong, Charlie Villanueva)

10. Oklahoma 1988
Final record: 35-4
Non-conference record: 20-1
Double-digit victories: 26
Average victory margin: 25.0
NBA first-round picks: Three (Stacey King, Mookie Blaylock, Harvey Grant)

rtnorthrup
08-08-2007, 04:20 PM
Looks like they intentionally did not pick any school twice.

mapei
08-08-2007, 04:29 PM
Looks like they intentionally did not pick any school twice.

It sure does. I don't see how UNLV 91 could be left off. It was stronger than UNLV 90, IMHO.

Duvall
08-08-2007, 04:32 PM
No way should UNLV '90 be ranked ahead of Kentucky '96. That UK team lost only twice - to two teams that went on to make the Final Four.

JasonEvans
08-08-2007, 06:26 PM
Duke 1999
Final record: 37-2
Non-Conference record: 18-2
Double Digit Victories: 34 (and they won 15 games by 30+ points)
Average victory margin: 24.6 (they played the nation's toughest schedule too)
NBA First-round picks: 5 (Brand, Langdon, Avery, Maggette, Battier-- all were taken in the first 13 picks in the draft too)

--Jason "they should be on this list-- not even a close call" Evans

ArkieDukie
08-08-2007, 06:27 PM
I guess I can understand why they would choose these ten teams (or not), but why would they rank them in this particular order? IMHO, several of the other teams in the top 10 are better than the 1990 UNLV team. I'm not necessarily talking about the 1992 Duke team, although I would put them above the 1990 UNLV team. All personal bias aside, of course.

mapei
08-08-2007, 09:43 PM
I think you can even make a case that Duke 99 was stronger than Duke 92 - which didn't even win the ACC IIRC.

Oh well, these things always have some arbitrariness to them, and that's part of the fun.

Amazingly, I barely remember that Kentucky team. I remember all the others well.

Deslok
08-09-2007, 03:08 PM
Duke 92 won the ACC, their only losses were at UNC, and at Wake(where Grant threw a curveball that took Laettner out of bounds running the play that would later become a bit more famous when run against Kentucky). Duke 91 lost the ACC tourney before bouncing back to win 6 straight.

Ahh, my freshman and sophomore years, such a nice way to start of at Duke.

Cameron
08-09-2007, 05:15 PM
How our 2001 club could not be ranked at all, let alone behind 2004 UConn and 2007 Florida, is beyond me.

35-4 - ACC & National Champions

-Duke Scoring: 90.7 Opponent: 70.5
-NCAA Record 407 Three-pointers Made

Shane Battier - Three-time NCAA Defensive Player of the Year, '01 First Team All-American, '01 National Player of the Year, 2001 NBA #6 pick, ACC Top 50 Male Athlete of All-time

Jason Williams - Two-time National Player of the Year, Two-time First Team All-American, '01 NABC National Player of the Year, 2002 NBA #2 pick, ACC Top 50 Male Athlete of All-time

Mike Dunleay - 2002 Second Team All-American, 2002 NBA #3 pick

Carlos Boozer - 2002 Second Team All-American, and his young NBA career speaks for itself

Chris Duhon - 2004 Third Team All-American, 2001 ACC Rookie of the Year, NBA Draft Pick

Nate James - 2001 All-ACC Third Team

That team was absolutely loaded. With two superstar athletes in Shane Battier and Jason Williams leading the way, as well as a cast of budding stars, our 2001 club was one hell of a team to watch. The best outside shooting team I have ever seen. Not adding them to the above list is a mistake.

In my opinion, Rivals is a mistake.

mapei
08-09-2007, 05:54 PM
That's a strong case, Cameron. They were certainly my favorite to watch. Would you rank them ahead of 1992?

rsvman
08-09-2007, 08:50 PM
Maybe this is just my anti-Carolina bias showing through, but the 2005 TarHeels only won the championship by the skin of their teeth, having beaten Villanova (who was without one of their starters with an injury) by a poor call in the waning seconds of the game. Anybody remember that game? As I recall it, the Carolina guy walked, then took a shot and was bumped. The shot fell. The walk was ignored, and the Carolina player was given the basket AND a freethrow. Without that chain of events, Carolina wouldn't have even been in the Final Four.

But had the 1999 Duke team had any similar type of windfall in the championship game, is there any doubt they would have been number one on the entire list?

1999 Duke would have beaten 2005 Carolina by 15 points, in my opinion.

3rdgenDukie
08-09-2007, 09:43 PM
Hard to compare those 2 teams, since K would never have had his team travel cross country to play on an opponent's home court.

Maybe the dumbest quote I've ever seen. Of course, as has been pointed out, Duke '01 did in fact play #3 Stanford in the Bay Area the year they won it. It's hard to compare the two teams because Duke '01 would never, ever even be challenged by an also ran like Santa Clara, much less get their asses handed to them like the '05 Heels. And don't even bring up the whole "but Felton was out" bullhttp://www.dukebasketballreport.comhttp://www.dukebasketballreport.comhttp://www.dukebasketballreport.comhttp://www.dukebasketballreport.com. The '01 Duke team lost its sole interior threat late in the season and waltzed into the Dean Dome a week later and embarrassed a top-5 UNC team before beating another FF team in the ACC final, also w/o Boozer.

UNC '05 was a good team, but #6 is proposterous. They won the ACC regular season due to a favorable unbalanced schedule, and failed to make the ACC tourney finals. They struggled to barely beat three teams in the NCAAs (Nova, Wiscy and UI). Their biggest win of the season was likely Luol Deng choosing to go pro unexpectedly. NCAA basketball was so watered down by that time that the best teams couldn't hold a candle to earlier champions. IMO, they aren't even in the discussion for the top-10, as numerous non-champions from earlier years would have run roughshod over them.

ArkieDukie
08-09-2007, 09:47 PM
Holy cow. When you list the 2001 Duke team's accolades out like that, how can they be left off the list altogether??? Those people at Rivals don't know what they're doing, bless their hearts. :)

Arkie "I'm Southern, can you tell?" Dukie

VaDukie
08-09-2007, 09:55 PM
Maybe this is just my anti-Carolina bias showing through, but the 2005 TarHeels only won the championship by the skin of their teeth, having beaten Villanova (who was without one of their starters with an injury) by a poor call in the waning seconds of the game. Anybody remember that game? As I recall it, the Carolina guy walked, then took a shot and was bumped. The shot fell. The walk was ignored, and the Carolina player was given the basket AND a freethrow. Without that chain of events, Carolina wouldn't have even been in the Final Four.

But had the 1999 Duke team had any similar type of windfall in the championship game, is there any doubt they would have been number one on the entire list?

1999 Duke would have beaten 2005 Carolina by 15 points, in my opinion.

I remember the Villanova sequence a little differently. I remember Villanova being down 3 with about 20 seconds and one of their guards drove to the basket and got fouled while hitting a shot - but then a phantom travel call was fouled.


In my opinion, even 2004 Duke was a better overall team than 2005 UNC. Even with the addition of Marvin, Duke's loss of Deng, and Livingston's no-show, UNC needed a miraculous comeback (aided by a phantom call on Christiansen v. Marvin) to avoid the sweep.

I wonder how many Daily Tar Heel alumni wrote this list.

Duke79UNLV77
08-10-2007, 08:03 AM
The 92 Duke team is the best college team I have seen. It should be remembered that their only 2 losses were related to Hurley's broken foot. I remember thinking durirng the UNC loss that it was the worst I had seen Hurley play since his freshman year. Turns out he played over half the game with a broken foot, which coincided with UNC's taking the lead and barely holding on. Hurley was also out in our Wake loss. To show his effect on the team, we scored close to 20 ppg less when he was out, and yet still managed to rack up quality wins, like at LSU against Shaq.

Battery
08-10-2007, 05:50 PM
Duke 1999 better be on that list. I am still scrounging for some retribution from that national championship game. How facemask, chubby and the rest of the uconnvicts beat us is still a mystery to me.

rsvman
08-10-2007, 08:33 PM
I remember the Villanova sequence a little differently. I remember Villanova being down 3 with about 20 seconds and one of their guards drove to the basket and got fouled while hitting a shot - but then a phantom travel call was fouled.


VaDukie, you are absolutely correct. In my mind it got corrupted to the other way 'round. But the main point still stands: UNC was very fortunate to get by 'Nova that day, and the Wildcats were missing one of their starters.

Cameron
08-10-2007, 10:04 PM
Would you rank them ahead of 1992?

mapei:

In all honesty, yes I would. While our '92 squad was certainly an amazing team, what with guys like Laettner, Hurely and Hill, I think the '01 edition was just a little more potent, both offensively and defensively. The combination of the big two alone, Battier and Williams, was one of the most lethal scoring tandems I have ever seen in college basketball. When those guys were knocking home the threes, it was lights out. Then you add in "role playing" guys like Mike Dunleavy, Carlos Boozer, Chris Duhon and Nate James. I mean, think about that lineup. Offensively, it's Durham's version of Murderer's Row.

Not to mention the '01 team defensively, which was one of the better squads I have ever seen. We had the obvious catalyst in Shane Battier, the three-time National Defensive Player of the Year, but Chris Duhon and Jason Williams could really pressure the ball out front as well, which gave us a tremendous edge that year over our opponents since we already had a near flawless open court attack offensively. We could have scored a hundred just about any given night when you come to think of it. Just look back to the 95-81 route in Chapel Hill. How many points did we score off of forced turnovers in that one? Shane drops in the middle, blocks an ill-fated Forte-wannabe-Jordan fadeaway, passes out on the sideline to either Chris or Jason, following with a catch and shoot net destroyer from 28'.

Damn were we loaded.

I definitely don't want to take anything away from '92, because they were an amazing collection of talent, but I think '01 was more potent altogether.

Battier. Williams. Boozer. Dunleavy. Duhon. James.

Murderer's Row, indeed.

mapei
08-11-2007, 09:31 AM
You make a great case.