ESPN ranked 79 College BAsketball National Championships

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

UCLA had 8 of their titles in the top 20 while only 3 of UK's were in the top 20. The 1996 team was 13th and the 2012 team was 16th and the 1978 team was 20th.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...56605/ranking-all-national-championship-teams

 

[BlueWorldOrder74]

96 was bad ass

 

[rupp876]

This is just more confirmation that ESPN is rather biased and totally sucks.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I think the 96 team would beat any championship team in history. 13th is a laugher.

 

[wcc31]

Pretty solid list, which you’d expect from Gasaway. Usually, you have some nitwit 23 year old millennial talking out his ***.

 

[Roe07]

Yep, that '57 Carolina team would've smoked our '96 Wildcats. Hilarious that they have 5 of UNC's title teams in the top 30.

 

[KingOfBBN]

ESPN made that list like 10 years ago and 96 UK was No. 2.

Ridiculous. That 96 team would beat anyone. The only one I’m okay with being above it is an Alcindor UCLA team.

 

[bthaunert]

96 Cats are the second highest 2 loss champion. No problem with that. One of the toughest things to do is compare teams from different eras. I don’t think the list is half bad.

 

[GonzoCat90]

I think you could put 96 somewhere around 7th, but I don't think it's too egregious to have them lower.

Look at the names on those teams and the guys that they beat to win it all. No shame in being behind teams that had Kareem, Walton, Russell, MJ, etc.

 

[SuporChin]

I would say the 96 squad was at least top 10 all time, and an argument could be made for top 5. They could definitely compete with any other championship because of their relentlessness and deep bench. The 2012 team is possibly top 15. I think it'll be a team that as time passes, will age even better.

 

[UKcatXXXL]

I didn't look at the list, but the bottom two should be UNC 2017 and Duke 2010

without question

 

[SuporChin]

Also, if you compare where the 2012 team is ranked in comparison to the other recent champions, UK stands far apart from the rest. Duke, 'Nova (no shade their way), UNC are all ranked far lower.

 

[Untouchables22]

ESPN made that list like 10 years ago and 96 UK was No. 2.

Ridiculous. That 96 team would beat anyone. The only one I’m okay with being above it is an Alcindor UCLA team.

I'm right there with you...UK 96 is a top 3 team without question and I think 2nd is fair because Alcindor is still the most dominant college basketball player of all time. Doesn't UK 96 still hold the record for most NBA players on a single college roster for one specific year???

 

[Blueblood22]

Not sure where they got that Louisville won a title in 2013.

 

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

I didn't look at the list, but the bottom two should be UNC 2017 and Duke 2010

without question

2017 UNC was 42nd which was one spot ahead of 98 UK and the 2010 Duke team was 48th.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Worst title team in my lifetime is easily 2014 UConn.

 

[Xception]

1,000 people could make a list and they’d all be different. It’s opinion, not fact.

 

[Soupbean]

Didn't read it but assume they would have to be basing the order on the dominance of the teams in their respective years and not against each other.

 

[TheDude73]

How easily ESPN forgets that it's widely known that most of those UCLA teams were paid players, well before the NCAA or anyone went around harping "amateurism" and taking away banners (they were slapped on the wrist, however, in 1981 when they were put on 2 years probation and had to vacate one game from 1980 after it was finally clear Sam Gilbert paid players all those years, but the NCAA staunchly protected Wooden and put this all on Larry Brown - even going as far as making one of their investigators who was on the trail "walk away".). One player (Bill Walton) has been quoted as saying he made more money at UCLA than he did in the NBA.

Simply Google "Papa Sam" and have fun. Or, here's a quick link to whet your whistle:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/08/sports/la-sp-0609-wooden-gilbert-20100609

 

[uk78]

Ridiculous. Texas Western actually lost in the tournament to Kansas except the refs then realized that Jo Jo White had his foot on the baseline slightly out of bounds and took away the winning shot. They beat Kentucky and Duke, true, but in close contests and with some questionable calls. UCLA with Walton probably was the best, but putting San Fran Dons up there just because of Bill Russell is also silly. Good team, yes, but not that well balanced. Others have already commented on some other teams that are misplaced.

 

[Brewskie]

UCLA had 8 of their titles in the top 20 while only 3 of UK's were in the top 20. The 1996 team was 13th and the 2012 team was 16th and the 1978 team was 20th.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...56605/ranking-all-national-championship-teams

Not a UK fan and have been watching college basketball since 1977, the 1996 UK team was probably the best team I've seen play college basketball.

 

[Ben101er]

96 was bad ass

Agree. You have to question the overall legitimacy of an article that doesn't have that team in the top 3.

 

[JonathanW]

I think the 96 team would beat any championship team in history. 13th is a laugher.

I think the issue here is they were doing this relative to your competition. There were numerous undefeated (thus dominant) teams until 1977, there has been no undefeated teams in 40 years. It's called parity. Any recent champ would probably beat most champs from the 50's & 60's, the game has evolved.

But one pro-UK thing to note is that the 96 UK team is the top ranked Champ over the past 35 years, and 2nd (to 82 UNCheat) since the last undefeated team in 76. UK also has 2 of the top 3 teams over the past 35 years.

 

[sluggercatfan]

I think the 96 team would beat any championship team in history. 13th is a laugher.

Those were some great ucla teams , even with all the cheating...LOL. Walton and Alcindor both were a load, but think the CATS would have been a load also with both teams loving to press.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Don't even have to see the list to know 1996 UK was better than all of them.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I think you could put 96 somewhere around 7th, but I don't think it's too egregious to have them lower.

Look at the names on those teams and the guys that they beat to win it all. No shame in being behind teams that had Kareem, Walton, Russell, MJ, etc.

7th?! No way.

 

[morgousky]

Ridiculous list. Totally laughable.

96 Kentucky is no worse than top 5 historically, and a strong argument can be made for the best ever.

There was a Sagarin list I used to have and can no longer find. Sagarin rated The 96 Cats as the greatest team of all time. Wish someone better than me could find it.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I think some people need to go back and watch 1996 Kentucky. Mohammed was on the JV team. That should put it into perspective. But, what would I know?! I'm just a troll.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Ridiculous list. Totally laughable.

96 Kentucky is no worse than top 5 historically, and a strong argument can be made for the best ever.

There was a Sagarin list I used to have and can no longer find. Sagarin rated The 96 Cats as the greatest team of all time. Wish someone better than me could find it.

I've seen it. Can vouch.

 

[morgousky]

I think you could put 96 somewhere around 7th, but I don't think it's too egregious to have them lower.

Look at the names on those teams and the guys that they beat to win it all. No shame in being behind teams that had Kareem, Walton, Russell, MJ, etc.

Eh,first season I remember was 92ish. From those years, 96 is the best. Just so dominant. I've never seen another team that dominant.

13th isn't really a logical position.

7th? That sounds better but I still think it's too low.

I think 1996 Kentucky should be safely inside the top 5 with an argument for any of the spots.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

All I gotta say is that the teams higher than that 1996 UK team better have damn good guard play. Most teams couldn't even get the ball past halfcourt consistently.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Eh,first season I remember was 92ish. From those years, 96 is the best. Just so dominant. I've never seen another team that dominant.

13th isn't really a logical position.

7th? That sounds better but I still think it's too low.

I think 1996 Kentucky should be safely inside the top 5 with an argument for any of the spots.

It's splitting hairs. A few places among 79 championship-caliber teams across 8 decades is virtually nothing.

It's almost impossible to put them ahead of anyone that's undefeated. And then you start looking at historic rosters and opponents and things like that and you're basically at a standstill. All you can do is look at record, margin of victory and competition.

If we could somehow put them on the court together in their primes, I think you'd obviously see the modern teams dominate. But relative to their competition, those top 5-6 teams did all they could do.

 

[morgousky]

It's splitting hairs. A few places among 79 championship-caliber teams across 8 decades is virtually nothing.

It's almost impossible to put them ahead of anyone that's undefeated. And then you start looking at historic rosters and opponents and things like that and you're basically at a standstill. All you can do is look at record, margin of victory and competition.

If we could somehow put them on the court together in their primes, I think you'd obviously see the modern teams dominate. But relative to their competition, those top 5-6 teams did all they could do.

That's true.

Still wish I could find that sagarin ranking from the mid 2,000's. Unless I was dreaming for an entire year he had them rated as the top team somehow.

 

[Cawood86]

I stopped after it said "ESPN ranked....

 

[GonzoCat90]

That's true.

Still wish I could find that sagarin ranking form the mid 2,000's. Unless I was dreaming for an entire year he had them rated as the top team somehow.

That sounds right. I seem to remember him setting up some kind of bracket or something that we advanced really far in.

I think part of it is because that team did the things his system rewards. Forced turnovers (or any kind of extra possessions), made 3's, got to the foul line, good percentages, etc.

Older teams wouldn't stand a chance in the metrics games. Mostly because the metrics were basically designed to effectively measure the way the game is played now. But there's really no consistent way to compare across eras.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Also, found the rating thing you were talking about.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

 

[morgousky]

Also, found the rating thing you were talking about.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

Naw that's not it. It was a sagarin ranking that had 96 as the top team of all time. This was around G's era. I used to have it..makes me sick. I cannot find it anywhere.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

That's true.

Still wish I could find that sagarin ranking from the mid 2,000's. Unless I was dreaming for an entire year he had them rated as the top team somehow.

You weren't dreaming, bro. I've seen it several times.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Hey @morgousky type "1996 Kentucky rated best team all time" into Google and see if you see it anywhere.

 

[rupp876]

Ridiculous. Texas Western actually lost in the tournament to Kansas except the refs then realized that Jo Jo White had his foot on the baseline slightly out of bounds and took away the winning shot. They beat Kentucky and Duke, true, but in close contests and with some questionable calls. UCLA with Walton probably was the best, but putting San Fran Dons up there just because of Bill Russell is also silly. Good team, yes, but not that well balanced. Others have already commented on some other teams that are misplaced.

I'm afraid you are off base about San Francisco. They also had NBA Hall of Famer K.C. Jones for example. Gene Brown was an All American and Mike Brown was 3rd pick in the draft the following year, They made the Final Four the year after Russell was gone as well.