PDA

View Full Version : Si.com: Best college hoops teams to not win a title



tommy
09-22-2014, 04:19 PM
Si.com has a piece up about the best post-1974 college basketball teams to not win a title. They've set it up as a "tournament" by seeding the top teams 1 through 16, and I guess they'll be discussing the teams and the "matchups" in the days to come. Readers can chime in by voting their preferences.

I'm pretty sure we've had the "best Duke team to not win a championship" debate on these boards before, perhaps more than once. This expands it to all of college basketball. Not surprisingly, our '99 team is the highest Duke team to receive a "seed," coming in at #5. Hard to quibble with the top three, but I think Duke '99 was a better team than Michigan '93. Our '02 team is the #10 "seed."

Anyway, kinda fun to think about. Here's the link to the article (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/09/22/best-teams-not-win-title-1974-maryland). Ballot box stuffing seems welcome!

lotusland
09-22-2014, 04:26 PM
Si.com has a piece up about the best post-1974 college basketball teams to not win a title. They've set it up as a "tournament" by seeding the top teams 1 through 16, and I guess they'll be discussing the teams and the "matchups" in the days to come. Readers can chime in by voting their preferences.

I'm pretty sure we've had the "best Duke team to not win a championship" debate on these boards before, perhaps more than once. This expands it to all of college basketball. Not surprisingly, our '99 team is the highest Duke team to receive a "seed," coming in at #5. Hard to quibble with the top three, but I think Duke '99 was a better team than Michigan '93. Our '02 team is the #10 "seed."

Anyway, kinda fun to think about. Here's the link to the article (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/09/22/best-teams-not-win-title-1974-maryland). Ballot box stuffing seems welcome!

Will the Heels hang a Final Four banner for their #3 seeded 1984 team if they don't get tripped up?

Wander
09-22-2014, 04:34 PM
Yeah, 1993 strikes me as overseeded, though they definitely deserve to be on the list somewhere.

The recent selections are a little odd to me. The 2006 UConn team was a trendier pick for the title, but they were behind 2006 Duke in both seeding and kenpom. I think Calipari's Memphis team with Derrick Rose was better than all the other recent teams they list (2006 UConn, 2010 Kansas, 2011 Ohio State, 2014 Florida). And I can't believe a bunch of those teams made it over the 1997 Kentucky team - Kentucky won the title in 1996 and 1998, and lost in the title game in overtime in 1997.

DukeandMdFan
09-23-2014, 12:34 PM
I don't think the teams of the "one-and-done" era could compete with the teams from the '80s when Johnny Dawkins, Len Bias, Ralph Sampson, etc. played four years.

I'm still partial to the '86 Duke team. Actually, several '86 ACC teams would could do well if these games could be played.

RaiderDevil
09-23-2014, 03:10 PM
'86 team definitely needs to be on there. They were the best team in the country that year, and I can't remember many years when the teams were so good.

Ichabod Drain
09-23-2014, 03:31 PM
From Ben Swain's Twitter:

"Not sure how you can leave off the 1924 UNC team on the list of best teams never to win a title"

JasonEvans
09-23-2014, 04:42 PM
'86 team definitely needs to be on there. They were the best team in the country that year, and I can't remember many years when the teams were so good.

The 1986 team set the record for most wins in a college basketball season (37) and remain tied for that record to this day (the 1999 Duke team is among those tied for the record). They are certainly among the top teams to never win a title. That said, I have to give the nod to 1999 Duke, which set a margin of victory record in the ACC and routinely blew the doors off very good, even ranked, teams all year long. I think they also set a margin of victory record in winning their NCAA region.

-Jason "1991 UNLV will be tough to beat in this poll... but wouldn't it be fitting if they were upset by a Duke team ;) " Evans

Bluegrassdevil1
09-23-2014, 05:22 PM
1. There is no rationale reason for the '03 UK to be on this list. The team was average in the preseason and ran through an average SEC conference, but ultimately lost to Dwayne Wade and Tom Crean's team. No team coached by Tubby Smith is/was ever safe from losing to anyone, at any time, but UK has had a vast amount of groups that were better than '03 (10, 93, 95, 88). I realize no one on DBR is interested in UK, but their inclusion on this list is absurd.

2. The '86 vs. '99 debate has always been interesting to me, as those two groups were profoundly good, loaded, yet somehow lost to teams that ending up defining their opposing coaches and players (Crum-Ellison, Calhoun-El Amin) by beating Duke.

The '99 team had more talent than '86, but the Dawkins' team was undoubtedly superior in x's and o's, yet I would suspect anything and everything could happen in that imaginary match-up.

I would love to see an emulator that pits the two groups together, but I never thought that the '99 team had the cajones to overtake another great team, and the '99 UConn team was great, and would have beaten Duke in any other scenario or situation, so I would take '86, so long as some other young freshmen stud doesn't manage to make his career against the Blue Devils as Ellison did.

How many other four-year starters can say they were drafted number one based on what they did in one game as a freshmen?

Duvall
09-23-2014, 05:24 PM
The 1986 team set the record for most wins in a college basketball season (37) and remain tied for that record to this day (the 1999 Duke team is among those tied for the record).

Not anymore. (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/kentucky/2012.html)

mpj96
09-23-2014, 06:21 PM
Where is the '94 unc team? They returned the whole national champ team, minus george lynch, plus stackhouse and Wallace. . .

Apologies in advance for awkward typing. ipad + autocorrect to blame.

Duvall
09-23-2014, 06:22 PM
Where is the '94 unc team? They returned the whole national champ team, minus george lynch, plus stackhouse and Wallace. . .

Apologies in advance for awkward typing. ipad + autocorrect to blame.

They forgot to become good, only going 11-5 in conference play and losing in the second round of the NCAAs.

Tripping William
09-23-2014, 08:33 PM
Where is the '94 unc team? They returned the whole national champ team, minus george lynch, plus stackhouse and Wallace. . .

Apologies in advance for awkward typing. ipad + autocorrect to blame.

Don't forget Jeff McInnis, the greatest addition to team chemistry ever known to man.

Nugget
09-23-2014, 08:47 PM
1. There is no rationale reason for the '03 UK to be on this list. The team was average in the preseason and ran through an average SEC conference, but ultimately lost to Dwayne Wade and Tom Crean's team. No team coached by Tubby Smith is/was ever safe from losing to anyone, at any time, but UK has had a vast amount of groups that were better than '03 (10, 93, 95, 88). I realize no one on DBR is interested in UK, but their inclusion on this list is absurd.

2. The '86 vs. '99 debate has always been interesting to me, as those two groups were profoundly good, loaded, yet somehow lost to teams that ending up defining their opposing coaches and players (Crum-Ellison, Calhoun-El Amin) by beating Duke.

The '99 team had more talent than '86, but the Dawkins' team was undoubtedly superior in x's and o's, yet I would suspect anything and everything could happen in that imaginary match-up.

I would love to see an emulator that pits the two groups together, but I never thought that the '99 team had the cajones to overtake another great team, and the '99 UConn team was great, and would have beaten Duke in any other scenario or situation, so I would take '86, so long as some other young freshmen stud doesn't manage to make his career against the Blue Devils as Ellison did.

How many other four-year starters can say they were drafted number one based on what they did in one game as a freshmen?


1. There is no rationale reason for the '03 UK to be on this list. . . .

2. The '86 vs. '99 debate has always been interesting to me, as those two groups were profoundly good, loaded, yet somehow lost to teams that ending up defining their opposing coaches and players (Crum-Ellison, Calhoun-El Amin) by beating Duke.

The '99 team had more talent than '86, but the Dawkins' team was undoubtedly superior in x's and o's, yet I would suspect anything and everything could happen in that imaginary match-up.

I would love to see an emulator that pits the two groups together, but I never thought that the '99 team had the cajones to overtake another great team, and the '99 UConn team was great, and would have beaten Duke in any other scenario or situation, so I would take '86, so long as some other young freshmen stud doesn't manage to make his career against the Blue Devils as Ellison did.


Agree on both of these points. '03 UK was nothing special. Would definitely pick '97 UK ahead of them.

And I have always favored '86 Duke over '99 Duke. Also, I think both 2001 and 2002 Duke teams were better than 1999. Brand was great that year, but the backcourt was questionable (as Ricky Moore proved, Trajan could be defended effectively, and William Avery was not a true PG) and Chris Carrawell was not yet really a scoring threat at SF. I don't know that U.Conn would have "beaten Duke in any other scenario or situation," but I certainly thought it was an even matchup, at least.


I think the 1999 team has always been over-valued because of how much it dominated its schedule -- including to its credit wins over teams that finished the season ranked #2 (Michigan St., twice), #5 (Maryland, twice), #8 (Kentucky), #9 (St. John's), #13 (N. Carolina, three times) and #23 (Florida) -- but which overlooks what a weak year 1999 was, especially in the ACC, and how much of an easy ride to the Final Four that team got.

But, look at some data points:

1. The ACC only had 3 NCAA teams in 1999 (Duke, Maryland, UNC).
2. The ACC only had 3 teams ranked in the pre-season or post-season polls (Duke, Maryland, UNC).
3. Only 1 other ACC team was ranked at any point that year -- Clemson, which got off to its usual hot start against cupcakes, was briefly ranked, then got pounded by Illinois in its last game before conference play, then went on to finish the regular season at 16-14, 5-11 (before going on a hot streak in the NIT).
4. Only Duke, Maryland and N. Carolina had winning records in ACC play.
5. The team that finished 4th in the ACC that year, Wake Forest, went 7-9 in conference, 17-14 overall.
6. The bottom part of the league was dreadful: #6 Georgia Tech went 15-16, 6-10; #8 Florida St went 13-17, 5-11 and #9 Virginia went 14-16, 4-12.

There were, to put it nicely, lots of gimmies in the ACC that year.

7. Even 3rd place UNC was comparatively weak: their "star" was Ademola Okulaja, they lost in the first round of the NCAAs to Weber St., and really, who else on this roster other than maybe Ed Cota put fear into anyone:

Starters: PG Ed Cota (Jr)/ WG Max Owens (So)/ SF Ademola Okulaja (Sr)/ PF Kris Lang (Fr)/ C Brendan Haywood (So)
Bench: F Jeff Capel (Fr)/ PG Ronald Curry (Fr)/ C Brian Bersticker (So)/ PF Vasco Evtimov (So).

8. While Duke almost certainly would have made the Final Four anyway, it probably didn't help that they got about the easiest route to the Final Four possible, facing #9 Tulsa in 2nd round, #12 S.West Missouri St. in the Sweet 16 and #6 Temple in the Elite 8.

9. Here's the 1999 NBA Draft, which reflects just how weak college hoops was that season:

1999 NBA Draft
1 Elton Brand
2 Steve Francis
3 Baron Davis (so good that UCLA lost in the 1st round of NCAAs to Detroit)
4 Lamar Odom (Rhode Island lost in 1st round of NCAAs)
5 Jonathan Bender (High School)
6 Wally Szczerbiak
7 Richard Hamilton
8 Andre Miller (Utah lost in 2nd round of NCAAs to Miami (Ohio))
9 Shawn Marion
10 Jason Terry (Arizona lost in 1st round of NCAAs)
11 Trajan Langdon
12 Alek Redojevic - Barton County JC
13 Corey Maggette
14 William Avery
15 Frederick Weis -France
16 Ron Artest
17 Cal Bowdler - Old Dominion
18 James Posey
19 Quincy Lewis - Minnesota
20 Dion Glover - Georgia Tech
21 Jeff Foster –S.W. Texas St.
22 Kenny Thomas -New Mexico
23 Devean George -Augsburg College
24 Andrei Kirilenko
25 Tim James -Miami
26 Vonteego Cummings- Pitt.
27 Jumaine Jones -Georgia
28 Scott Padgett -Kentucky Sr.
29 Leon Smith (HS).

So, other than the Duke guys, the "best" players in the first round that year were:
1. Baron Davis, 2. Rip Hamilton, 3. Shawn Marion, 4. Andre Miller, 5. Lamar Odom, 6. Ron Artest, 7. Andrei Kirilenko, 8. Jason Terry, 9. Steve Francis, 10. James Posey.

Anyone else even have the semblence of an NBA career?

And in the 2nd round of that draft, I don't see a single person who played meaningful minutes in the NBA except Manu Ginobili (who was taken 2nd to last).

That's very weak. And, even if you look at "meaningful" players in 1998-1999 who were in the following year's (2000) NBA Draft, it doesn't get much better, as you basically add:
Kenyon Martin (Cincinnati), Mike Miller (Florida), Jake Voskuhl and Khalid El-Amin (U.Conn), Mateen Cleaves and Mo Pete (Mich. St.), Michael Redd and Scoonie Penn (Ohio St.), Erick Barkley (St. John's), Jerome Moiso (UCLA), Hanno Mottola (Utah), Jamaal Magloire (Kentucky), Etan Thomas (Syracuse), Desmond Mason (Oklahoma St.), Chris Porter and Mamadou N'diaye (Auburn) and a bunch of big goofy white guys (Chris Mihm, Joel Przyzbilla, Mark Madsen, etc.).

Brutal.

Compare instead the draft classes of 1986 and 1987 that the Duke 86 team had to compete against:

1986:
1 Brad Daugherty
2 Len Bias
3 Chris Washburn
4 Chuck Person
5 Kenny Walker
6 William Bedford
7 Roy Tarpley
8 Ron Harper
9 Brad Sellers
10 Johnny Dawkins
11 John Salley
12 John Williams
13 Dwayne Washington
14 Walter Berry
15 Dell Curry
18 Mark Alarie
19 Billy Thompson, and

second rounders including: Mark Price, Greg Drelling, Dennis Rodman, Johnny Newman, Nate McMillan, Kevin Duckworth, Milt Wagner, David Wingate and Jeff Hornacek.

And 1987 draftees who were meaningful contributors in the 1986 season included: David Robinson, Kenny Smith, Reggie Williams, Reggie Miller, Kevin Johnson, Horace Grant, Olden Polynice, Derrick McKey, Muggsy Bogues, Joe Wolf, Mark Jackson, Ken Norman, Steve Alford, Andrew Kennedy and Bruce Dalrymple (plus small schoolers Scottie Pippen and Reggie Lewis).

jimsumner
09-23-2014, 09:03 PM
Ricky Moore proved that Langdon could be defended effectively? Langdon had 25 points against UConn. I guess we have different definitions of effectiveness.

Nugget
09-23-2014, 09:53 PM
Ricky Moore proved that Langdon could be defended effectively? Langdon had 25 points against UConn. I guess we have different definitions of effectiveness.

I mostly have in mind the last two significant trips down the floor when Trajan couldn't get shots off against Moore. In fairness to Trajan, he was asked both times to take Moore off the dribble - not his forte.

Trajan really was fantastic that night - basically kept us in the game, when really nothing else was working (poor defense, killed on the boards, couldn't get Elton going inside).

subzero02
09-23-2014, 10:08 PM
Who would win in round robin play?... 91 Duke, 99 Uconn or 86 Louisville? What would the scores be in each matchup?

Bluegrassdevil1
09-23-2014, 10:21 PM
I mostly have in mind the last two significant trips down the floor when Trajan couldn't get shots off against Moore. In fairness to Trajan, he was asked both times to take Moore off the dribble - not his forte.

Trajan really was fantastic that night - basically kept us in the game, when really nothing else was working (poor defense, killed on the boards, couldn't get Elton going inside).

Langdon had a great scoring night, yet Moore played amazing defense that night, which is one of the reasons the final was so memorable; two overlooked leaders (not Brand, Maggette, or Hamilton) were the stars for both teams.

I have always marveled that despite '99's great talent, the team could not adhere to the Coach K "big game/run" equation: upperclassman leads the way, while a younger player makes HUGE plays:

1. Scheyer/Singler with Dawkins' big shots.

2. Battier with Duhon's big shots.

3. Hurley with G.Hill's... he was Grant Hill.

4. Laettner with Hurley's... he was Bobby Hurley.

------------------------------------------------------

1. Duhon was solid in '04, but Redick was... NCAA tournament Redick.

2. McLeod was solid in '98, but Avery and Brand played like kids, which is fine, because they were kids in '98.

3. Dawkins was great in '86, but Ferry struggled.

4. No one was great in '90, but Abdelnaby tried, and Hurley ran out of gas from things similar to "runs" and "gas".

5. Hill was himself in '94, but in truth, no one else on the team truly struggled, short of Collins forgetting to PASS THE DAMN BALL, and Thurman used the '92 Laettner reverse karma for the win.

While I do adhere to the idea that the '99 Duke was likely the greatest non-title Blue Devil team, I do find it unfair that Calhoun's team was in '99, and even now, overlooked for having the same amount of losses as Duke, holding the number one spot for longer, and generally, being a better "team" than Duke was at the end of the season.

I hated seeing any Calhoun led team win the big prize, but '99 is still one of the few times, other than '94 and '90, that I think post-86 Duke lost to a better team in the tournament.

tommy
09-23-2014, 11:22 PM
1. There is no rationale reason for the '03 UK to be on this list. The team was average in the preseason and ran through an average SEC conference, but ultimately lost to Dwayne Wade and Tom Crean's team. No team coached by Tubby Smith is/was ever safe from losing to anyone, at any time, but UK has had a vast amount of groups that were better than '03 (10, 93, 95, 88). I realize no one on DBR is interested in UK, but their inclusion on this list is absurd.

2. The '86 vs. '99 debate has always been interesting to me, as those two groups were profoundly good, loaded, yet somehow lost to teams that ending up defining their opposing coaches and players (Crum-Ellison, Calhoun-El Amin) by beating Duke.

The '99 team had more talent than '86, but the Dawkins' team was undoubtedly superior in x's and o's, yet I would suspect anything and everything could happen in that imaginary match-up.

I would love to see an emulator that pits the two groups together, but I never thought that the '99 team had the cajones to overtake another great team, and the '99 UConn team was great, and would have beaten Duke in any other scenario or situation, so I would take '86, so long as some other young freshmen stud doesn't manage to make his career against the Blue Devils as Ellison did.

How many other four-year starters can say they were drafted number one based on what they did in one game as a freshmen?

That's simply not true. Ellison averaged 13, 15, 17.6, and 17.6 ppg, and between 8 and 9 boards for each of his four years. He was a consensus first team All-American his senior year. It helped him that the top of the 1989 draft stunk, but he was not drafted #1 based on one game as a freshman.