ESPN Ranks National Title Champions

[BigZ]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15104532/john-wooden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions

I believe this is a pretty fair list. Duke order: 1992, 2001, 2015, 2010, 1991.

[duke blue brewcrew]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15104532/john-wooden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions

I believe this is a pretty fair list. Duke order: 1992, 2001, 2015, 2010, 1991.

It's an interesting read, and a brave attempt at something very difficult - comparing greatness from very different generations of college basketball. I'm sure there could be some lively debates sparked from this list, comparing this team to that team, etc. I'm sure I'm statistically wrong, but it is difficult for me to mentally embrace that the '91 team finished 6 places behind the '10 team. I wouldn't mind seeing '92 ranked just a little higher as well, but maybe that's just me.

[weezie]

Any chance we can get Bill Walton to post here and explain what must have been some torturous brain exercises for our dear pals at espn?

[kAzE]

I agree with the list for the most part. It seems like the distribution of talent in men's basketball back in the Wooden era was more like current day women's basketball with UConn being the dominant force in the sport. It makes sense that those teams are ranked highly, with UCLA having a monopoly on the best NBA talent staying and developing for 4 years.

[Tjenkins]

I generally agree with this list, but I'd put the 1991-92 team somewhere in the top 10. I wasn't around to see UCLA of the Wooden era or Indiana's undefeated team. So for me, Duke's '92 team was the most dominant team I've ever seen.

[jv001]

I generally agree with this list, but I'd put the 1991-92 team somewhere in the top 10. I wasn't around to see UCLA of the Wooden era or Indiana's undefeated team. So for me, Duke's '92 team was the most dominant team I've ever seen.

You missed some great Wooden teams that really were dominant. I think Duke's '92 team is one of the top 5-10 teams in the modern era. GoDuke!

[gurufrisbee]

A) All the Duke teams are rated way too low. That's got to be intentional. Click bait.
B) How is the 1992 team so much higher than the 1991 team? They were essentially the same teams unless you feel like Cherokee Parks really made a huge difference.
C) If the 1991 team loses to UNLV, where does that UNLV team come in? Top five. If the 2015 team doesn't win because Kentucky does, where does that team come in? Top five. Yet instead both the Duke teams for those years comes in WAY low. Not right.

[sagegrouse]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15104532/john-wooden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions

I believe this is a pretty fair list. Duke order: 1992, 2001, 2015, 2010, 1991.

So, in ESPN's view, the top eight teams are all pre-1980. Uhhh,... NO! This is total nonsense. There is a huge difference in talent, training, coaching, and skills between then and now. Kids start playing basketball full-time and year-around at a very young age today.

In the 1960's -- my college era -- there were only about thirty schools that were taking basketball seriously. Now there are 150 or so that are really trying to assemble talent and win. As an indication, in the 1964 Eastern Regional finals, Duke beat UConn 101-54 -- yep, 47 points. That was one reason for UCLA's string of championships -- there weren't many good teams and there weren't many good teams at all west of the Mississippi, so UCLA had a relatively clear path to finals -- all teams in a region were from that region and the West region played the Midwest region (think Missouri Valley, not Big Ten) in the National Semis, while the East Region champion (including ACC and all the Eastern independents) played the Mideast Region champion (Big Ten, SEC and smaller conferences).

Alcindor was amazing, as was Walton and David Thompson, but there is no way the teams of the 50's, 60's and early 70's were overall as good as the teams of the last 30 years.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Yeah, I know, Al. In 1964 they didn't seed the teams in the regionals so Duke's big match, which I saw, was against Villanova in the semis, which Duke won 87-73. But Duke and Nova appeared to be the only decent teams in the entire East Region -- Duke was 13-1 in the ACC'

[BigZ]

The 1999 team would be top 3 if it didn't lose to UCONN.

[kAzE]

UK's 2015 team would be up there as well if they won it all. 38-1 is still pretty amazing.

[BigZ]

Head to head matchup 99 team beats any other Duke team. Best team I've ever seen in college.

[kAzE]

Head to head matchup 99 team beats any other Duke team. Best team I've ever seen in college.

Generally, I agree with this. The 99 team was the most physically dominant and most talented Duke team ever, but still I think it would be tough to give them the game against the 92 squad with those seniors.

[cato]

Generally, I agree with this. The 99 team was the most physically dominant and most talented Duke team ever, but still I think it would be tough to give them the game against the 92 squad with those seniors.

Or '01. That game might come down to match-up at the 4. CDu, JDub, Mike D and Battier knocking down 3s would have made it hard for the younger Battier to work his magic on D.

[mark34]

An impossible task with predictably silly result.

[jimsumner]

The 1992 Duke team went 34-2. The 1991 Duke team went 32-7.

So, no, they weren't the same team.

I've always gone with '68 UCLA as the best ever.

Sure, they lost once.

But they avenged that loss. Houston was undefeated and ranked No. 1 in the country when they played UCLA in the 1968 Final Four. UCLA won by 32 points!! Chew on that for awhile. The No.1 team in the country losing by 32 points in the Final Four.

UCLA followed that up with a 23-point win over one of Dean Smith's best UNC teams, the only one that included both Larry Miller and Charlie Scott.

Plus 55 in the Final Four.

And I'm always amused by the obligatory Bob Cousy reference re 1947 Holy Cross. Cousy was a freshman reserve who averaged about 8 ppg.

It's a little like crediting Danny Ferry for the success of Duke's 1986 team.

[DukeTrinity11]

I'm sorry but UK 2012 was not better than Duke 2001 or Arizona 2001. The latter 2 teams were the last "great" college teams in my opinion.

Jay Will>Marquis Teague
Duhon>Doron Lamb
Dunleavy>MKG
Battier>TJones
Nate James<Anthony Davis

Besides Davis who would be a matchup problem, Duke's 2001 team is at a completely different level than that UK squad.

[Duke79UNLV77]

The 1992 Duke team went 34-2.

With a broken foot from a certain point guard factoring into both losses. I'd say the only reason a UNC team got ranked higher was because of what a certain shooting guard did in the pros. Imagine where the 99 team would have been ranked if they'd finished the deal. I believe only one ACC team stayed within double digits of them that year, and that was an 8-point win for Duke.

[Pghdukie]

68 UCLA. Lost to Houston in the Astrodome in front of 55,000. Elvis Hayes led the upset. Back then not many games were held in the big of a setting. Advertised as the "Game of the Century". Bruins got redemption by 32 in FF

[Atldukie79]

Generally, I agree with this. The 99 team was the most physically dominant and most talented Duke team ever, but still I think it would be tough to give them the game against the 92 squad with those seniors.

Great question.

In 1999, I had the good fortune to go on a Disney Cruise with my family...my 3 sons ranged from 8-13 yrs old. We had a Bobby Hurley sighting which caused great excitement from my Blue Devil indoctrinated sons. (Hurley had approached mythic proportions in my sons' minds)

So when we stopped for a day at a private beach, the 4 of us took a stroll along the shore...ostensibly to get exercise, in reality, to meet Bobby Hurley!
In fact, we found him sitting in the sand and struck up a conversation. Very pleasant. I don't think he felt like we were stalking:)

I asked him this very question. He gave a thoughtful analysis about the matchups. In the end, he felt like the '99 team "did not have an answer for Laettner". Unsurprisingly, he felt '92 would win.

He was actually modest about the role he might play in that matchup.

While I agree that the '99 team was physically dominating, we must recall how injuries directly led to the 2 loses incurred by '92. They may well have been undefeated without them. I think senior leadership and NCAA success would make the difference in that matchup in favor of '92.

[jimsumner]

Great question.

In 1999, I had the good fortune to go on a Disney Cruise with my family...my 3 sons ranged from 8-13 yrs old. We had a Bobby Hurley sighting which caused great excitement from my Blue Devil indoctrinated sons. (Hurley had approached mythic proportions in my sons' minds)

So when we stopped for a day at a private beach, the 4 of us took a stroll along the shore...ostensibly to get exercise, in reality, to meet Bobby Hurley!
In fact, we found him sitting in the sand and struck up a conversation. Very pleasant. I don't think he felt like we were stalking:)

I asked him this very question. He gave a thoughtful analysis about the matchups. In the end, he felt like the '99 team "did not have an answer for Laettner". Unsurprisingly, he felt '92 would win.

He was actually modest about the role he might play in that matchup.

While I agree that the '99 team was physically dominating, we must recall how injuries directly led to the 2 loses incurred by '92. They may well have been undefeated without them. I think senior leadership and NCAA success would make the difference in that matchup in favor of '92.

Would '92 have had an answer for Elton Brand?

I guess if Jim Calhoun did. :(

'92 had an edge in experience. '92 started two seniors, two juniors and a sophomore. '99 started one senior, one junior and three sophomores. And '92 had the experience of the '91 run.

Then again, '99 was deeper. And if Duke doesn't pull off the greatest game-ending play in college hoops history, then '92 doesn't make the FF and they take their place as one of Duke's might-have-beens.

Which team gets the edge in coaching?

[JasonEvans]

B) How is the 1992 team so much higher than the 1991 team? They were essentially the same teams unless you feel like Cherokee Parks really made a huge difference.

Not Cherokee Parks, but I think being a year older and more experienced does make a huge difference. Surely anyone can see that senior year Laettner (who hit 55.7% of his three-point shots) was better than junior year Laettner (34% of his 3s). Thomas Hill and Grant Hill both improved their scoring averages by 3 points per game from 91 to 92. Hurley improved his scoring by 2 points per game. Brian Davis went from 7ppg to 11+ points. We were missing Billy McCaffrey on the 1992 squad, which was a significant loss, but I think it is quite clear that 1992 Duke was significantly better than the still excellent 1991 team.

--Jason "this list is silly... different era make it useless. The great teams of today would probably toy with the more Earth-bound, slower-paced, and less athletic teams of the 60s and 70s" Evans

[wsb3]

The game UCLA lost to Houston..I am pretty sure is the game Lew Alcindor played with double vision..maybe due to the severe migraines he had.

He was the most dominant..greatest player in college I ever saw play & I don't think it is close.

[devildeac]

The game UCLA lost to Houston..I am pretty sure is the game Lew Alcindor played with double vision..maybe due to the severe migraines he had.

He was the most dominant..greatest player in college I ever saw play & I don't think it is close.

Great memory. Close, very close. From wiki:

"The January 1968 cover of Sports Illustrated depicted the game, with Hayes shooting over Alcindor. Alcindor—who had sustained an eye injury at a game against Cal a week earlier—had the worst performance of his college career. It was one of only two times in his UCLA career that he shot less than 50% from the field."

[nmduke2001]

I asked him this very question. He gave a thoughtful analysis about the matchups. In the end, he felt like the '99 team "did not have an answer for Laettner". Unsurprisingly, he felt '92 would win.



Before the 97-98 season, I was watching a pick-up game between a bunch of the former Duke players and most of the current team. It was on East Campus (WilRec had not opened yet). Elton was on a team of current guys. If I remember correctly, Shane, Wojo, Nate and maybe Ricky Price were on the same team as Elton. That team was handling the others pretty easily. Laettner and his crew had next. Elton starts talking smack to Laettner before the game starts. Laettner (who was coming off a pretty good NBA season IIRC) decided to teach Elton a lesson. Laettner scored all 11 of his teams points while Elton was guarding him. For the 11th point, Laettner pulled up from like 30 feet and yelled "game" and turned around as the ball was in the air (much like Steph Curry does now). The ball went in for the win. Elton shook his head and then shook Laettner's hand. Pretty cool to see.

btw, Hurley completely dominated Wojo all afternoon.

[jimsumner]

The game UCLA lost to Houston..I am pretty sure is the game Lew Alcindor played with double vision..maybe due to the severe migraines he had.

He was the most dominant..greatest player in college I ever saw play & I don't think it is close.

Scratched cornea, if I recall correctly. I believe that's why he wore the goggles down the road.

Wooden said later that Alcindor would not have played the next game had it been an ordinary game.

[wsb3]

Wooden said later that Alcindor would not have played the next game had it been an ordinary game.


I remember that now. I also stand corrected about the migraines being the problem.

[rsvman]

...

He (Lew Alcindor) was the most dominant..greatest player in college I ever saw play & I don't think it is close.

Guess you forgot about Pete Maravich, then?

[ricks68]

Not Cherokee Parks, but I think being a year older and more experienced does make a huge difference. Surely anyone can see that senior year Laettner (who hit 55.7% of his three-point shots) was better than junior year Laettner (34% of his 3s). Thomas Hill and Grant Hill both improved their scoring averages by 3 points per game from 91 to 92. Hurley improved his scoring by 2 points per game. Brian Davis went from 7ppg to 11+ points. We were missing Billy McCaffrey on the 1992 squad, which was a significant loss, but I think it is quite clear that 1992 Duke was significantly better than the still excellent 1991 team.

--Jason "this list is silly... different era make it useless. The great teams of today would probably toy with the more Earth-bound, slower-paced, and less athletic teams of the 60s and 70s" Evans

Yeah, I guess Texas Western was one of those "less athletic" teams you are talking about. Boy, a match-up of that team with our 99 team would have been something to see!

ricks

[ricks68]

Guess you forgot about Pete Maravich, then?

I think wsb3's emphasis was on the word "dominant".

After watching our Duke team demolish the famous UCLA press here in NC two games in a row pre-Alcindor, Bubas had us practicing with tennis racquets on defense in an effort to simulate what we would be facing in the rematch. We all know how that turned out, unfortunately.

ricks

[Devilwin]

A) All the Duke teams are rated way too low. That's got to be intentional. Click bait.
B) How is the 1992 team so much higher than the 1991 team? They were essentially the same teams unless you feel like Cherokee Parks really made a huge difference.
C) If the 1991 team loses to UNLV, where does that UNLV team come in? Top five. If the 2015 team doesn't win because Kentucky does, where does that team come in? Top five. Yet instead both the Duke teams for those years comes in WAY low. Not right.

The 92 team was more battle tested, and the players had matured and gelled into a monster of a team. Cherokee was a big help too.
I believe they were rated too low.

[gurufrisbee]

Not Cherokee Parks, but I think being a year older and more experienced does make a huge difference. Surely anyone can see that senior year Laettner (who hit 55.7% of his three-point shots) was better than junior year Laettner (34% of his 3s). Thomas Hill and Grant Hill both improved their scoring averages by 3 points per game from 91 to 92. Hurley improved his scoring by 2 points per game. Brian Davis went from 7ppg to 11+ points. We were missing Billy McCaffrey on the 1992 squad, which was a significant loss, but I think it is quite clear that 1992 Duke was significantly better than the still excellent 1991 team.

--Jason "this list is silly... different era make it useless. The great teams of today would probably toy with the more Earth-bound, slower-paced, and less athletic teams of the 60s and 70s" Evans


The 92 team was more battle tested, and the players had matured and gelled into a monster of a team. Cherokee was a big help too.
I believe they were rated too low.

I don't doubt that Parks helped and definitely a year older and better did too and I am sure the 92 team was better than the 91 team, but not nearly by the gap that this list suggested.

[Edouble]

Would '92 have had an answer for Elton Brand?

I guess if Jim Calhoun did. :(

'92 had an edge in experience. '92 started two seniors, two juniors and a sophomore. '99 started one senior, one junior and three sophomores. And '92 had the experience of the '91 run.

Then again, '99 was deeper. And if Duke doesn't pull off the greatest game-ending play in college hoops history, then '92 doesn't make the FF and they take their place as one of Duke's might-have-beens.

Which team gets the edge in coaching?

Hands down '92 gets the edge in coaching. Coach K was in chronic pain and has gone on record to say that he was not himself during that title game. He had hip replacement surgery, what... two days later?

I agree that if Jake Voskul could handle Elton, I'm quite sure Christian could. The guy had already handled college Shaq and college 'Zo.

Plus Grant Hill is the best player on the floor, if it's not Laettner.

[wsb3]

Guess you forgot about Pete Maravich, then?

I loved Pete but I stand by my post. There is also another side of the ball & I don't think anyone accused Pistol Pete of playing defense.:)

Lew led the freshman to a beat down of the varsity that was coming off back to back National Championships. He was that dominant.

[Pghdukie]

I swear Pete would stand at half court instead of play D. He would just yell at his teammates - "when you get the ball, throw it to me". His Dad, Press Maravich, would then say "That's my boy" !

[jimsumner]

I swear Pete would stand at half court instead of play D. He would just yell at his teammates - "when you get the ball, throw it to me". His Dad, Press Maravich, would then say "That's my boy" !

LSU played UCLA Maravich's senior year. UCLA won 133-84. Maravich scored a bunch of points but shot something like 14-45.

After the game John Wooden was asked about Maravich's flashy game, the between-the-legs dribbles, the behind-the-back passes, et. al.

Wooden responded that he was very impressed. And added "imagine if he had spent all that time learning to play defense."

I've always said that Maravich would be on my short list of most exciting players ever or players I would pay to see.

But great players make their teammates better. Maravich did not make his teammates better. It was all about him.

[turnandburn55]

B) How is the 1992 team so much higher than the 1991 team? They were essentially the same teams unless you feel like Cherokee Parks really made a huge difference.
.

Teams routinely improve dramatically purely due to internal improvements. Witness 2000 vs 2001. Lost ACC POY Chris Carrawell and gained freshman Chris Duhon. No argument that one was vastly better than the other.

[turnandburn55]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15104532/john-wooden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions

I believe this is a pretty fair list. Duke order: 1992, 2001, 2015, 2010, 1991.

The good:

The mid-2000s teams (Florida, UNC, etc) are ranked as middle-of the pack, which is where they belong.

The bad:

Teams that suffered mid-season slumps due to injuries are downgraded more than makes sense to me. 1992 Duke, 2004 UConn, 2000 Michigan State...

The weird:

Perpetually overrating 1982 UNC. Yes, thank you, Michael Jordan was on the team. Move along. He was a fine college player, but this wasn't Bulls MJ. I can't even understand ranking them above David Thompson's Wolfpack.

2012 Kentucky at #16? Please. Yes, their two losses were close. But when I look at the teams in the 24-29 range... they seem a lot more comparable.

[gotoguy]

I'm not sure any of the teams on the list beats State with David playing.

[Indoor66]

I'm not sure any of the teams on the list beats State with David playing.

Burleson was a load as well, though David was unquestionably the best evah in the ACC.

[Bluedevil114]

I'm sorry but UK 2012 was not better than Duke 2001 or Arizona 2001. The latter 2 teams were the last "great" college teams in my opinion.

Jay Will>Marquis Teague
Duhon>Doron Lamb
Dunleavy>MKG
Battier>TJones
Nate James<Anthony Davis

Besides Davis who would be a matchup problem, Duke's 2001 team is at a completely different level than that UK squad.

Did something happen to Carlos Boozer? I think I would rather have Boozer muscle Davis around than Nate James. Nate was the sixth man on this team.

[jv001]

I'm not sure any of the teams on the list beats State with David playing.

DT was right up there with Kareem as the best college player I saw play. Jordan was not even close, thanks Dean. GoDuke!

[throatybeard]

The 2015 Kentucky Wildcats and the 2016 North Carolina Tar Heels surely must be up there, yes?

[eddiehaskell]

Before the 97-98 season, I was watching a pick-up game between a bunch of the former Duke players and most of the current team. It was on East Campus (WilRec had not opened yet). Elton was on a team of current guys. If I remember correctly, Shane, Wojo, Nate and maybe Ricky Price were on the same team as Elton. That team was handling the others pretty easily. Laettner and his crew had next. Elton starts talking smack to Laettner before the game starts. Laettner (who was coming off a pretty good NBA season IIRC) decided to teach Elton a lesson. Laettner scored all 11 of his teams points while Elton was guarding him. For the 11th point, Laettner pulled up from like 30 feet and yelled "game" and turned around as the ball was in the air (much like Steph Curry does now). The ball went in for the win. Elton shook his head and then shook Laettner's hand. Pretty cool to see.

btw, Hurley completely dominated Wojo all afternoon.Cool story (and not the sarcastic "cool story"). Would've liked to see something like that.

[dukelifer]

The 2015 Kentucky Wildcats and the 2016 North Carolina Tar Heels surely must be up there, yes?

Now that is just mean ;)

[brevity]

So, in ESPN's view, the top eight teams are all pre-1980. Uhhh,... NO! This is total nonsense. There is a huge difference in talent, training, coaching, and skills between then and now. Kids start playing basketball full-time and year-around at a very young age today.


--Jason "this list is silly... different era make it useless. The great teams of today would probably toy with the more Earth-bound, slower-paced, and less athletic teams of the 60s and 70s" Evans

I've noticed some confusion regarding John Gasaway's list on ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15104532/john-wooden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions). (I quoted two such examples above; sorry for singling you out.) The confusion is really Gasaway's fault, seeing as how he wrote 4 paragraphs of prelude without explaining what he was doing.

When you read the descriptions of team champions, you begin to see his reasoning: I believe he's evaluating each champion's dominance compared to other teams that year. He's saying that #1 1972 UCLA was farther ahead of its competitors that any other team before or since. He is NOT saying that 1972 UCLA would beat every other team on the list, mostly because he's not trying to draw those comparisons. He does get into some personnel nitpickery, partly to distinguish the UCLA teams, and later to selectively bolster his arguments.

As far as lists go, it's not a bad one. Even though Gasaway kept his criteria vague, he thought it through and seemed to stick to it. And it's the main reason some of these Duke teams seem to be placed lower than expected. Every Duke champion was either one of multiple dominant teams (2001, 2015), a singular dominant team that got tested in the tournament (1992), or a survive-and-advance type that didn't seem all that dominant at the time (1991, 2010).

Finally, I wanted to point out that 2016 Villanova has been added to the list at #46, right between UNLV 1990 and Duke 2010.

[COYS]

As far as lists go, it's not a bad one. Even though Gasaway kept his criteria vague, he thought it through and seemed to stick to it. And it's the main reason some of these Duke teams seem to be placed lower than expected. Every Duke champion was either one of multiple dominant teams (2001, 2015), a singular dominant team that got tested in the tournament (1992), or a survive-and-advance type that didn't seem all that dominant at the time (1991, 2010).

Finally, I wanted to point out that 2016 Villanova has been added to the list at #46, right between UNLV 1990 and Duke 2010.

Since 2002 when the KenPom era began, we could do this more objectively by looking at each champion's adjusted efficiency differential, which would give us an estimate as to how much more dominant the champion was than the average team from that season. Interestingly, Kansas 2008 would actually top that list, with UK 2012, Louisville 2013, Duke 2010, and Nova 2016 rounding out the top five. To be honest, I was actually surprised that neither UNC 2005 nor UNC 2009 were as high as these other teams. Even though I will always believe that the 2010 Duke team should have been regarded as one of the favorites for the title all along, the '09 Heels rolled to the title. But I guess that goes to show how a faced paced team can appear more dominant than they actually are.

[jv001]

Since 2002 when the KenPom era began, we could do this more objectively by looking at each champion's adjusted efficiency differential, which would give us an estimate as to how much more dominant the champion was than the average team from that season. Interestingly, Kansas 2008 would actually top that list, with UK 2012, Louisville 2013, Duke 2010, and Nova 2016 rounding out the top five. To be honest, I was actually surprised that neither UNC 2005 nor UNC 2009 were as high as these other teams. Even though I will always believe that the 2010 Duke team should have been regarded as one of the favorites for the title all along, the '09 Heels rolled to the title. But I guess that goes to show how a faced paced team can appear more dominant than they actually are.

The '09 Cheats might not end up with that championship. At least that's what I'm hoping for. :cool: GoDuke!

PS: Throw that cheats '05 team in there as well. GoDuke!