ESPN Ranks Championship Teams

[luburch]

ESPN continues it's celebration of the 75th tournament by ranking all the championship teams so far.

Duke teams
56-2010
34-1991
21-2001
11-1992

4 UCLA teams in the top 10.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/feature/video/_/page/Top75champions/ncaa-75-college-basketball

[rsvman]

I didn't see the list, but if 2011 UConn Huskies aren't dead last, the list stinks.:cool:

[luburch]

I didn't see the list, but if 2011 UConn Huskies aren't dead last, the list stinks.:cool:

Somehow they managed to be ranked 55 IIRC.

[superdave]

I didn't see the list, but if 2011 UConn Huskies aren't dead last, the list stinks.:cool:

#55 or one spot ahead of 2010 Duke. Singler/Scheyer/Smith would crush 2011 UConn. No doubt about it.

[Exiled_Devil]

I didn't see the list, but if 2011 UConn Huskies aren't dead last, the list stinks.:cool:

But ESPN has a love affair with that team. Because they got to broadcast the Big East Tourney run, with the 4,000 OT game that will be hte most amazing game ever. Also, the proximity of Storrs and ESPN HQ tend to skew their opinion on UCONN in general.

[vick]

#55 or one spot ahead of 2010 Duke. Singler/Scheyer/Smith would crush 2011 UConn. No doubt about it.

Wow, I think sometimes posters here are a little too quick to accuse networks or announcers of bias, but that's really indefensible. Just for giggles, I put together a quick table of the last 10 champions and randomized the order:



Record ConfFinish ConfTourn AP Finish SRS KenpomMgn
37-3 T1 W 4 26.90 42.5
30-5 2 SF 13 19.02 25.8
33-6 2 W 7 22.64 34.4
32-9 T9 W 9 17.95 25.4
35-5 T1 W 3 25.21 37.6
35-5 1 W 3 23.82 38.0
33-6 T3 W 11 20.21 32.2
34-4 1 SF 2 25.46 34.6
38-2 1 F 1 24.73 34.7
33-4 1 SF 2 28.42 39.9


It's not that hard to guess, of course, which one is UConn 2011--they stand out, all right--as pretty clearly the worst champion of the last ten years.

[uh_no]

But ESPN has a love affair with that team. Because they got to broadcast the Big East Tourney run, with the 4,000 OT game that will be hte most amazing game ever. Also, the proximity of Storrs and ESPN HQ tend to skew their opinion on UCONN in general.

the 5 OT game with syracuse was 2009.....

[weezie]

And to think the pinheads at ESPN actually get paid to navel gaze.

[subzero02]

the 5 OT game with syracuse was 2009.....

Uconn vs. Syracuse was actually a 6 overtime game...played 3/12/09-3/13/09.
Louisville vs. Notre Dame this year went 5 ot's.

[uh_no]

Uconn vs. Syracuse was actually a 6 overtime game...played 3/12/09-3/13/09.
Louisville vs. Notre Dame this year went 5 ot's.

I try to forget the last overtime of that '09 game :)

but the original poster asserted that ESPN only loved the '11 uconn team because they won the big east tournament and had a crazy OT game....which, seeing as uconn lost the OT game, would have been quite the feat

[sporthenry]

2010 Duke was considered the worst modern day champion (i.e. since '85) which boggles my mind since they were a #1 seed. So an 8 seed Villanova was better? Good to know. Not to mention, that was a much more complete team than 2011 UCONN. 2010 Duke wasn't a juggernaut but they weren't a bad team either.

I also think UK 2012 at 16 is absurd and probably benefits from being more recent. Also think the 2001 team is underrated.

[superdave]

2010 Duke was considered the worst modern day champion (i.e. since '85) which boggles my mind since they were a #1 seed. So an 8 seed Villanova was better? Good to know. Not to mention, that was a much more complete team than 2011 UCONN. 2010 Duke wasn't a juggernaut but they weren't a bad team either.

I also think UK 2012 at 16 is absurd and probably benefits from being more recent. Also think the 2001 team is underrated.

1991 Laettner would destroy 2012 Anthony Davis. It would not be fair. I think Gilchrist might be able to hang with some of those guys, but it would not be really a fair match.

Yet 1991 Duke is #34 and 2012 UK is #16.

That makes no sense. I dont think this list even had any criteria for choosing. It was more like "hey, who do we like from the past 75 years and can we have this done by 5 today?"

[Dukeface88]

2010 Duke was considered the worst modern day champion (i.e. since '85) which boggles my mind since they were a #1 seed. So an 8 seed Villanova was better? Good to know. Not to mention, that was a much more complete team than 2011 UCONN. 2010 Duke wasn't a juggernaut but they weren't a bad team either.

I also think UK 2012 at 16 is absurd and probably benefits from being more recent. Also think the 2001 team is underrated.

Seems to me that ranking 1990 UNLV over the 1991 or 1992 Duke teams is a bit silly as well, seeing as the '91 Duke beat what was basically the '90 UNLV team.

[BobbyFan]

Seems to me that ranking 1990 UNLV over the 1991 or 1992 Duke teams is a bit silly as well, seeing as the '91 Duke beat what was basically the '90 UNLV team.

1990 UNLV's margin of victory in the title game and their dominance in the following season has led to them being overrated.

And this list is horrible. But then, it's ESPN.

[vick]

Seems to me that ranking 1990 UNLV over the 1991 or 1992 Duke teams is a bit silly as well, seeing as the '91 Duke beat what was basically the '90 UNLV team.

Well...they're ranking teams based on what they accomplished for the whole year, though, not one game decided by a one shot margin. I think it's pretty obvious that over the whole year UNLV was a better team than Duke in 1991, so I don't think it's fundamentally unreasonable to put their 1990 team above it either (although it would probably be a reasonably close call).


1991 Laettner would destroy 2012 Anthony Davis. It would not be fair. I think Gilchrist might be able to hang with some of those guys, but it would not be really a fair match.

I don't know about this. It's really common to say that the skill level has drastically fallen off, and clearly early entry would have some effect, but that can really be exaggerated--someone here (I want to say COYS but I am not positive) talked about going back and watching the old championship teams, and I did a few months back (game vs. Indiana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCSlojP8weI), game vs. Michigan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMjyAOK6rRg)), and I was legitimately shocked how awful the games looked at times--it didn't mesh at all with my memory of a juggernaut playing in a more skillful age. I'm actually pretty confident the Anthony Davis of the Final Four was a significantly better player than Laettner was in the 1992 Final Four (which I know was not the pinnacle of his career).

[brevity]

Here are how the champions from the 64 (or more) team era are ranked:

5. 1996 Kentucky
10. 1990 UNLV
11. 1992 Duke
14. 2007 Florida
15. 1999 Connecticut
16. 2012 Kentucky
17. 1994 Arkansas
20. 2009 UNC
21. 2001 Duke
22. 2008 Kansas
26. 2004 Connecticut
27. 2005 UNC*
28. 2003 Syracuse
31. 2000 Michigan State
32. 2002 Maryland
33. 1987 Indiana
34. 1991 Duke
38. 2006 Florida
39. 1997 Arizona
42. 1993 UNC
43. 1998 Kentucky
49. 1995 UCLA
50. 1989 Michigan
52. 1985 Villanova
54. 1986 Louisville
55. 2011 Connecticut
56. 2010 Duke
57. 1988 Kansas

Actually, the 2005 UNC team was ranked #31, but then Sean May ate four of the ice cream flavors.

[turnandburn55]

2009 UNC being better than 2001 Duke is a bad April Fools joke.

[Duvall]

2009 UNC being better than 2001 Duke is a bad April Fools joke.

2009 UNC did almost beat Boston College - you have to give them that.

[subzero02]

2010 Duke was considered the worst modern day champion (i.e. since '85) which boggles my mind since they were a #1 seed. So an 8 seed Villanova was better? Good to know. Not to mention, that was a much more complete team than 2011 UCONN. 2010 Duke wasn't a juggernaut but they weren't a bad team either.

I also think UK 2012 at 16 is absurd and probably benefits from being more recent. Also think the 2001 team is underrated.

Ok, I didn't bother to look at the list and now I definitely won't. There is no way in hell that 2012 Kentucky was a better team than 2001 Duke... Unreal.

[hurleyfor3]

Actually, the 2005 UNC team was ranked #31, but then Sean May ate four of the ice cream flavors.

He would have eaten the rest, but Khalid El-Amin got to them first.

[sporthenry]

Just thinking about it some more. It is absurd that Connecticut 2011 is ahead of Duke 2010. One team had 9 losses and finished 9th in conference. The other team won its conference. I'm not sure how UCONN is even in the discussion ahead of Duke.

Then you have UCONN 99 at 15. They were the biggest point spread upset in championship history. How can they be that great when they were nearly 10 point dogs to Duke? Unless that would mean Duke would have been the greatest champion since they were 10 points better than the 15th best team. But then I realized where ESPN was located.

I'd consider that 2001 team the greatest champion of the last 15 years (since '99). I could hear an argument for Florida and UNC 2009 and Maryland (since a younger team took the 2001 team to the brink a few times) but beyond that, I don't think anyone could match a top 4 of Jay Williams, Dunleavy, Battier and Boozer.

[turnandburn55]

Here's a fun one-- I know I've posted it before, but never gets old: www.whatifsports.com

You have to mess with the lineup a bit, but the only teams which give Duke 2001 a run for their money are UNLV 1991 and Kentucky 1996. I must have run a dozen simulations with them playing UNC 2009, and we went 12-0, with some ugly blowouts in there.

[brevity]

USA Today has a different list ranking the best Final Fours of the last 75 years (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/04/02/final-four-rank-experts-best-1-to-15/2044593/).

Duke places as high as #2, but that was for the 1966 Final Four, which is celebrated for non-Duke reasons. Coach K era highlights:

8. 1991
14. 2010
15. 1988
16. 1989
23. 1990
30. 1999
31. 1992
37. 1986
38. 1994
41. 2001
66. 2004 (Comment: "I had totally forgotten about Luke Schenscher.")

Interestingly, the worst Final Four was in 2009.