Ranking every NCAA Championship team (77 of them)

dukiejay

Heisman
Mar 2, 2005
11,293
16,311
0
It's obviously a subjective list, but I think good reading, nonetheless. There really is no right or wrong.

For the record, here's where they have the five Duke teams ranked.

15. 1992
24. 2001
38. 2015
46. 2010
52. 1991

Initially, 2010 seems maybe a little high while 1991 low, but that's based off them maybe beating the most dominant team of the modern era in the Final Four. I thought 1992 and 2001 are about in the right range, and it's hard to rank last year any higher considering three of our four best players were only freshman.

Enjoy.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...oden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions
 
  • Like
Reactions: youngman42

DukeRulesBasketball

All-American
Aug 20, 2015
7,258
5,182
0
It's obviously a subjective list, but I think good reading, nonetheless. There really is no right or wrong.

For the record, here's where they have the five Duke teams ranked.

15. 1992
24. 2001
38. 2015
46. 2010
52. 1991

Initially, 2010 seems maybe a little high while 1991 low, but that's based off them maybe beating the most dominant team of the modern era in the Final Four. I thought 1992 and 2001 are about in the right range, and it's hard to rank last year any higher considering three of our four best players were only freshman.

Enjoy.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...oden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions
Yea... Don't agree 1991-92 Duke team has to be in top 5.
 

dbav

All-American
Mar 14, 2014
8,042
5,875
0
1. 2001
2. 2015
3. 1992
4. 1991
5. 2010

I might have all 5 in a tie to be honest. I also a it I'm biased.

I actually think the 2015 team is kinda low. That was a heck of a team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pisgah101

dukiejay

Heisman
Mar 2, 2005
11,293
16,311
0
The thing is, those UCLA teams were really, really good. While I think 1992 could be higher, I'm not sure it's top 10 good. And while I think 1991 is low, I also wouldn't place them top 25. But I don't think top 30 or 35 is unreasonable. People forget that '91 team took some lumps that season.
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
For starters, some of the coolest stories from NCAAT history are the '83 Wolfpack and '85 Nova, and lists like this sort of hold that against them and are incompatible with the romantic nature of the NCAAT.

Secondly, lots of schools with multiple titles seemed to be clumped together, as if once they listed one, they said, "Oh, yeah, I almost forgot their other championship team."

Third, the bottom of the list is filled with teams from the '40s. Could it be that they defaulted to putting the teams they knew the least about last?

Do I have to keep numbering? Okay, fourth, UTEP top 10, UNLV as low as 46, and Syracuse as high as 45 are all horribly wrong.

Fifth, UConn '99 at 21 is about right, and it highlights how much our loss in the title game to them was not the upset everyone seems to think... but close the deal and Duke '99 might have cracked the top 10.
 

pisgah101

Heisman
Dec 26, 2005
15,261
12,805
113
If not for UK having the "undefeated" or really "overrated" season last year our 2015 would of been considered a GREAT team.. They won't ever get their due but that was a top 15 talented team. 01 IMO is the best of ours tho, I'd put them up against any team
 

HuffyJB

All-Conference
Jan 13, 2005
5,931
3,890
0
I know those Wooden-era UCLA teams were great, but I don't know of all ten should be in the top 20 (or thereabouts).

And I know I might be a homer, but I agree with the 1992 Duke team being a top ten squad. The second of a back-to-back, Laettner was unquestionably one of the greatest college players of all time, the NCAA career assists leader, Grant Hill, etc.
 

thaUNCshow

Redshirt
Mar 24, 2010
10
7
0
The thing is, those UCLA teams were really, really good. While I think 1992 could be higher, I'm not sure it's top 10 good. And while I think 1991 is low, I also wouldn't place them top 25. But I don't think top 30 or 35 is unreasonable. People forget that '91 team took some lumps that season.


They were really good relative to their competition and the landscape of basketball during their time. Thats why this list has no right or wrong answers because comparing across different eras is impossible. Players are much bigger and more athletic than they were in the 50s and 60s. Bill Russell was a physical freak in the 50s but today he would be about the same size as Brandon Ingram and he would get abused by almost every big man in the country.

I agree that your 2001 team was your best championship team. Jay Williams would be too much for Hurley and Boozer would hold his own against Laettner
 

jnastasi

Senior
Mar 28, 2012
1,069
664
0
Its tough to rank to teams in the 40s and 50s. Such a different game these days. The 2001 team should be in the top 20. The 2015 should be ranked a little higher as well just based on talent while the 2010 team should be ranked a little lower. 2008 Kansas is ranked too high and 2004 UConn way too low. Just my take.
 

youngman42

All-Conference
Jan 27, 2003
6,787
1,339
0
It's obviously a subjective list, but I think good reading, nonetheless. There really is no right or wrong.

For the record, here's where they have the five Duke teams ranked.

15. 1992
24. 2001
38. 2015
46. 2010
52. 1991

Initially, 2010 seems maybe a little high while 1991 low, but that's based off them maybe beating the most dominant team of the modern era in the Final Four. I thought 1992 and 2001 are about in the right range, and it's hard to rank last year any higher considering three of our four best players were only freshman.

Enjoy.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...oden-1972-ucla-bruins-top-list-ncaa-champions

Thanks for the link! Love stuff like this. Usually I find lists like this over-rank modern teams - but I think this list is pretty dead on - especially in the top 10. UCLA '69 could easily be #1 but for that loss (which, as the piece failed to note, cam in a weak when Alcindor had a scratched cornea and a patch over his eye most of the previous week - he was not himself as a result. The title game demonstrated how dominant they were).

Definitely think '91 is ranked too low. I'd take them over '93 UNC and over '09 UNC, as well as several others. It should be remembered that '91 was a team that didn't just upset UNLV (a truly dominant team) but also had the same nucleus that went to the title game the previous year. So, they were no undermanned-flash-in-the-pan team. Their talent proved itself in the '92 season.

Also, the '01 Duke team was really dominant. They won a lot of games by big numbers - even without Boozer for a big chunk of the ACC regular season.
 

youngman42

All-Conference
Jan 27, 2003
6,787
1,339
0
I'd say the top 6 are all the teams that have to be in the top 6. Leaving aside differences in era (and I agree, one cannot compare across eras as the game evolves too much; as well as the athletes), there's no way any of the other teams could compare to the top 6 (after that, a number of arguments could be made). Those teams were so good and so dominant - I saw everyone of them except for SF - but they had two all-time greats at any level. You have two of the Walton teams and two of the Alcindor teams - and those teams were incredibly dominant (Walton's was the core of the 88 game win streak; Alcindor was the greatest CBB player of all-time; Luscious Allen was no slouch either). Indiana '76 was as complete and perfect a team as there has been. I'm biased to UCLA '72 but IU '76 played the purest Bob Knight basketball ever and had every area covered (team defense; rebounding; PG play; star player; size; and as smart a team as you'll ever find in the history of CBB).
 

Dattier

All-American
Sep 1, 2003
9,374
5,634
0
Also, the '01 Duke team was really dominant. They won a lot of games by big numbers - even without Boozer for a big chunk of the ACC regular season.
Boozer was injured in the second-to-last regular season game.
 

GAAP_rivals

All-Conference
Apr 9, 2002
3,663
3,303
0
Don't see how they could possibly exclude Helms trophy winners. I read on THR that a Helms trophy is equivalent to an NCAAT title.
 

DFerryFan

Junior
Mar 8, 2011
1,022
268
0
Wow, they really like old teams on this list. I guess it's not really fair to try and compare teams from the 70s to teams from the 2000s. However, I wonder how much parody there was back then compared to nowadays? Did earlier decades have as many Cinderellas or mid-major teams doing well in the tournament like there is today? Was there ever a Davidson (when they had Steph Curry) or a Butler back then? Just curious, because I think that might be a big difference in todays teams not being as dominant as some teams were in past decades.
 

DFerryFan

Junior
Mar 8, 2011
1,022
268
0
Also, as much as it pains me to say this, I'd definitely have UConn '99 in the top 10 rather than #21. In order to beat that '99 Duke team, which I consider possibly the best Duke team ever assembled. That game still stings.
 

LongTimeDukeFan

All-Conference
Nov 20, 2009
4,424
1,714
97
32 game format and the regionals were truly limited to that region. UCLA in the West, playing only teams in the western region, while the other three regions beat each other up. UCLA just had to hang around to pick up the pieces. Sorry not buying these rankings.

....and yes the 1991 Duke win is woefully underrated.
....and yes I am biased.
 

dukiejay

Heisman
Mar 2, 2005
11,293
16,311
0
Wow, they really like old teams on this list. I guess it's not really fair to try and compare teams from the 70s to teams from the 2000s. However, I wonder how much parody there was back then compared to nowadays? Did earlier decades have as many Cinderellas or mid-major teams doing well in the tournament like there is today? Was there ever a Davidson (when they had Steph Curry) or a Butler back then? Just curious, because I think that might be a big difference in todays teams not being as dominant as some teams were in past decades.

The players, overall, are better now. And I don't necessarily mean indidually, just that there's more of them. Even 25 years ago it seemed like there were only 8-10 teams that could make the Final Four. This season there were probably 25-30. That's become more of the norm.