Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="SWC75, post: 2991667, member: 289"]
It's like me judging the value of diamonds. They are all national champions and I don't think the writer lacked respect for any of them.

The problem I had with the list is that the criteria isn't clear. The only one he states is that he feels teams from when the players stayed four years had an advantage over teams of recent years because they would have had greater chemistry. Actually, the trend has been for the schools that keep their players for four years, (or at least 3) are the ones that still win the title. There's no discussion of what I call the "shelf life of a great team": how far in in the future do you go where you still consider a team competitive against other national champions?
How much do you emphasize dominance in their time or the historical significance of the team? Was Texas Western ''66 really the 7th greatest team ever? Could the 1956 San Francisco Dons beat The 1984 Georgetown team? How would the Alcindor or Walton gangs fare today? Is it about the fame of the team's best player?   It's hard to tell what criteria he was using, at least not with consistency.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?