I'm very surprised that Ralph Sampson was only #18. I would have suspected higher, and would definitely have put him ahead of Ewing. It'll be interesting to see who goes higher than him. But if Alcindor is not #1, I'm calling B.S.
ESPN is in the process of naming the 25 greatest college basketball players. In naming Tom Gola, it appears to me that they are sticking strictly to college basketball unlike the ACC sportswriters who named Jordan as the best ACC player in the first 50 years (IMO, Jordan is barely in the top ten). I suspect their best player is one of the big three – Alcindor/Jabbar, Walton or Russell. They were all great players who led their teams to championships. Behind them, I expect the Big O, Thompson, Lucas, Ewing, Maravich, Chamberlain, Bird and maybe Laettner and West. Luisetti may be on the list because he is credited with developing the one hand jump shot.
Based on the players I saw, I would vote for Lou Alcindor/Jabbar.
gw67
I'm very surprised that Ralph Sampson was only #18. I would have suspected higher, and would definitely have put him ahead of Ewing. It'll be interesting to see who goes higher than him. But if Alcindor is not #1, I'm calling B.S.
I'd vote for the skywalker.
No way guys, Lou Alcindor must come in number two. Pistol Pete Maravich was the best. If he was on UCLA at the time, we would be calling him the greatest player hands down, but he wasn't. He is the all time scoring leader in college basketball history.
I wouldn't argue with Alcindor/Jabbar -- three straight national titles and he was the Final Four MVP in all three.
But I'd also vote for David Thompson, who was clearly the greatest non-center. I'm willing to bet that he finishes behind Walton in the ESPN vote, even though when the two took their teams to the Final Four in 1974, it was Thompson who prevailed -- even though Walton had by far the greater supporting cast (including four future all-pro players on the UCLA).
It would tick me off if he finished behind Oscar or Pistol Pete -- two stat hogs who never led their teams to championships. What does it say about you when your team only starts winning championships in the year AFTER you finish -- if Oscar is in your top three, then where is Tom Thacker? And LSU had one winning season with Maravich and never played in the NCAA Tournament.
The listing of Sampson at No. 18 seems awfully high to me for a guy who was renowned for choking in the clutch. Here's a guy who never won a championship ACC or NCAA. Ewing let his team to an NCAA championship (1984) and two more title games (1982, 1985). Sampson led Virginia to one Final Four, but choked the next two years ... His defenders tried to blame his supporting cast, but the year after Sampson left, Virginia finally made it back to the Final Four with Olden Polynice in the middle.
I also want to see how high Laettner makes it. If he winds up behind Jordan, then we'll know the "based on collegiate performance" is BS.
With total humility.
I have no familiarity with Maravich with regard to direct viewing of his play. I begin with college basketball in 1982. I understand he scored a bunch of points, but from what I have heard, he also took a tremendous amount of shots and monopolized the ball a great deal. Would he have shot, scored and dominated the ball as much with UCLA, or would he simply have been a very skilled cog in a dominant machine?
You can find his career stats here. (Scroll down) He wasn't a ball hog, averaging over six rebounds and five assists a game.
He was a wizard with the basketball. Any team would be better for having him as a member.
Wilkes, Meyers, Johnson and Washington?
My recollection of that game is what a factor Monty Towe was -- pushing, pushing, pushing the ball upcourt. It was never in the cards for him to be all-pro at 5'5", but people seem to forget what a great college player he was.
Lew Alcindor gets my nod, and I agree Thompson is second, nosing out Walton. Maravich was a gunner -- showtime -- who didn't make the players around him any better. I don't know if he even would have played at UCLA. Wooden liked an even scoring distribution and defense.
Out of curiosity, who are the players that ESPN has named to the list so far?
Named so far:
David Robinson
Austin Carr
Ralph Sampson
Tom Gola
Tim Duncan
Elgin Baylor
Which of these was born at Duke Hospital?
Wilkes definitely played with Walton as did his backup Swen Nater who was a good pro. I don't think Meyers played on his teams but I think Johnson and Wicks were sophs when Walton was a senior. Thompson and Robertson were the best all around players and I respectively disagree with Olympic - Maravich was a ball hog but the Big O shot a high percentage and averaged about 10 assists per game. I saw both he and Thompson play in person and they were simply the best that I had ever seen play.
I also would put Russell and Walton ahead of Thompson and Robertson but I am really splitting hairs because all four are among the greatest of all time. Thompson did indeed outplay Walton in the NCAA's although the player he beat was Wilkes. Thompson was returning the favor to Keith who outplayed him during their regular season meeting.
gw67
Maravich was nothing without "the socks".
Let us not forget that the NCAA tournament was a completely different beast back in Maravich's time. It was basically a straight trip to the sweet 16 for regional winners. (... and you wondered how UCLA won so many consecutive titles.)
Pistol Pete took a previously miserable losing team to the NIT Final Four (Not the same NIT as today). Also, he wasn't exactly a ball hog. It wasn't uncommon for Pete to dish out 8 or 9 assists a game. In fact, at least 2 or 3 times a season Pete would turn in 11, 12, even 19 assist performances.
Plus, he is the all time scoring leader in ONLY THREE YEARS (44 pts/game, 3667 pts).
My final argument for Pistol Pete is that we should look at criteria. Last year, Kevin Durant was the winner without argument. Was he on a championship caliber team? No. The best player doesn't need to be the dominant player on the best team. He just needs to be a great player on a relevant team (Often times the team is relevant because of the player). The player of the year award has always worked this way.
Lou Alcindor made a very good team, great. Maravich made a terrible team very good. The player of the year award has historically treated two players with these two profiles equally. So, this being the case, who was better? I still must give the nod to the greatest offensive player the NCAA has ever seen- Pistol Pete!
Sorry, got to make corrections:
Wicks -- class of '71. Didn't play with Walton who was on the freshman team in '71. Wicks vied with Austin Carr for player of the year.
Nater -- class of '73. Didn't play in '74 title game against NCS.
Johnson -- class of '77 (as was Washington). Played with Walton in '74 as freshmen.
Meyers -- class of '75. Played two years with walton, started at forward along with Wilkes in '74.
Is there anything to suggest that he was a bad defender? In my opinion, even an average defender with his offensive skills would be one of the top players ever, and I could easily see him being THE top player. Not that he definitely is, there's a ton of room for conversation. But especially considering he played for a good while in the NBA and was pretty successful I'd say he could at least play SOME defense. Have you heard otherwise?
Thanks dk. I went with my memory rather than do a little research.
gw67