SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,489
- Like
- 64,483
Mike Lindsley today asked what teams each caller, (E-mailer, tweeter, Facebook friend), to identify which college basketball team they consider to be the best ever. Mike said that his memory of teams goes back to the mid-80’s so he limited his choices to teams from that era. He went with the ’92 Christian Laettner-Grant Hill Duke team. Others mentioned were the ’96 Kentucky team, the ’90 UNLV team and UNC’s 2005 and 2009 teams. There wasn’t much support for last night’s Kentucky team. Older fans went for Bobby Knight’s 1976 Indiana team, (that’s JB’s favorite: he mentioned a game where a good Virginia Tech team couldn’t get a shot off vs. them until it was 0-22), or the Walton and Alcindor UCLA teams, (my favorite was the ‘68 UCLA team that beat 31-0, #1 ranked Houston by 32 points in the national semi-finals, after being up by 44 points at one juncture.) There was even support for the Bill Russell San Francisco teams.
It’s an impossible question to answer, of course, since these teams can’t play each other, (and you’d really need a round-robin rather than a single elimination tournament to truly determine the best team). One thing I noticed about this Kentucky team is that, while they went on some pretty strong runs, they didn’t necessarily blow teams away. They won their games by 15, 16, 12, 12, 8 and 8. The consistency is impressive but I’m sure other teams have topped that.
I decided to have a look at that. Two problems: the tournament was originally eight teams and you only had to win three games to win it. Then it went to 16 and 24, (for along time), then 32, (which thought was perfect), then 48, then 64 then 64+. So teams have had to win unequal numbers of games to win the championship. Secondly, there are a lot of games these days against teams that never would have been in the tournament in the old days. Some of them wind up in heartwarming upsets, but most are blow-outs.
The solution to both problems is the same: add the point differentials from the Elite 8 onward. Here is a ranking of all the national champions by the total number of points they won their last three tournament games by. It doesn’t answer all questions but it is a way of looking at it.
76- UCLA ‘68
69- UNLV ‘90
63- Indiana ‘81
61- UCLA ‘69
60- Ohio State ‘60
58- Oklahoma A&M (State) ‘45
57- Michigan State ‘79
55- Kansas ‘52
52- Kentucky ‘49
51- Indiana ‘40
49- UCLA ‘70
47- Kentucky ‘48, UCLA ‘73
46- Oregon ’39, La Salle ‘54, Kentucky ‘58, UCLA ‘67
45- San Francisco ‘56
44- Florida ‘06
43- North Carolina State ‘74, North Carolina ‘09
41- Cincinnati ‘62, Indiana ‘76
40- UCLA ‘72, Michigan ‘40
38- UCLA ‘65
36- Loyola (Chic) ‘63, Kentucky ‘96, Michigan State ‘00
35- Oklahoma A&M (State) ‘46, Cincinnati ‘61
34- Holy Cross ‘47 Georgetown ‘84
33- Louisville ’80, Duke ’01
32- Stanford ‘42
30- UCLA ‘95, Syracuse ‘03, Duke ‘10
29- Maryland ‘02
28- Kentucky ‘51, Kentucky ‘12
27- Indiana ‘53, San Francisco ’55, California ’59, North Carolina ‘05, Florida ‘07, Kansas ‘08
26- Duke ‘91, Connecticut ’04
25- UCLA ’64
24- Kansas ’88, Duke ’92
23- North Carolina ’93
22- UCLA ‘75, Marquette ‘77, Louisville ‘86
21- Utah ‘44, Villanova ‘85, Arkansas ‘94
19- Wyoming ‘43
17- Arizona ‘96
16- UCLA ‘71, North Carolina ‘82
15- Texas Western (UTEP) ‘66, Connecticut ‘11
14- North Carolina ‘57, Kentucky ‘94, Connecticut ‘99
12- Wisconsin ’41, Kentucky ‘98
10- North Carolina State ‘83
9- CCNY ’50
6- Indiana ‘87
Comment: There are some famous teams that don’t rate high on this list as well as some surprises near the top. I was surprised at how well some of the early teams did because the game was lower scoring in the early years, (although we seem to be returning to those kind of scores). College basketball was a minor sport in most areas prior to about the 1960’s and the caliber of completion- even in the Elite 8 may not have been as strong as in later eras. Of course teams from decades ago would have trouble dealing with the size and athleticism of modern teams, although that 1968 UCLA team went 6-8, 7-1, 6-5 across the front line. Kentucky this year was 6-9, 6-10, 6-7. A lot of the teams got hot at the right time. The 1981 Indiana team was 21-9 going into the tournament. A lot depends on who you play. Some years are stronger than others. Some years there are more upsets than others. Most national champions have the waves part for them to some extent.
I think the best way to react to this list is to not lose respect for the teams that aren’t high on it but to gain respect for the teams that are.
It’s an impossible question to answer, of course, since these teams can’t play each other, (and you’d really need a round-robin rather than a single elimination tournament to truly determine the best team). One thing I noticed about this Kentucky team is that, while they went on some pretty strong runs, they didn’t necessarily blow teams away. They won their games by 15, 16, 12, 12, 8 and 8. The consistency is impressive but I’m sure other teams have topped that.
I decided to have a look at that. Two problems: the tournament was originally eight teams and you only had to win three games to win it. Then it went to 16 and 24, (for along time), then 32, (which thought was perfect), then 48, then 64 then 64+. So teams have had to win unequal numbers of games to win the championship. Secondly, there are a lot of games these days against teams that never would have been in the tournament in the old days. Some of them wind up in heartwarming upsets, but most are blow-outs.
The solution to both problems is the same: add the point differentials from the Elite 8 onward. Here is a ranking of all the national champions by the total number of points they won their last three tournament games by. It doesn’t answer all questions but it is a way of looking at it.
76- UCLA ‘68
69- UNLV ‘90
63- Indiana ‘81
61- UCLA ‘69
60- Ohio State ‘60
58- Oklahoma A&M (State) ‘45
57- Michigan State ‘79
55- Kansas ‘52
52- Kentucky ‘49
51- Indiana ‘40
49- UCLA ‘70
47- Kentucky ‘48, UCLA ‘73
46- Oregon ’39, La Salle ‘54, Kentucky ‘58, UCLA ‘67
45- San Francisco ‘56
44- Florida ‘06
43- North Carolina State ‘74, North Carolina ‘09
41- Cincinnati ‘62, Indiana ‘76
40- UCLA ‘72, Michigan ‘40
38- UCLA ‘65
36- Loyola (Chic) ‘63, Kentucky ‘96, Michigan State ‘00
35- Oklahoma A&M (State) ‘46, Cincinnati ‘61
34- Holy Cross ‘47 Georgetown ‘84
33- Louisville ’80, Duke ’01
32- Stanford ‘42
30- UCLA ‘95, Syracuse ‘03, Duke ‘10
29- Maryland ‘02
28- Kentucky ‘51, Kentucky ‘12
27- Indiana ‘53, San Francisco ’55, California ’59, North Carolina ‘05, Florida ‘07, Kansas ‘08
26- Duke ‘91, Connecticut ’04
25- UCLA ’64
24- Kansas ’88, Duke ’92
23- North Carolina ’93
22- UCLA ‘75, Marquette ‘77, Louisville ‘86
21- Utah ‘44, Villanova ‘85, Arkansas ‘94
19- Wyoming ‘43
17- Arizona ‘96
16- UCLA ‘71, North Carolina ‘82
15- Texas Western (UTEP) ‘66, Connecticut ‘11
14- North Carolina ‘57, Kentucky ‘94, Connecticut ‘99
12- Wisconsin ’41, Kentucky ‘98
10- North Carolina State ‘83
9- CCNY ’50
6- Indiana ‘87
Comment: There are some famous teams that don’t rate high on this list as well as some surprises near the top. I was surprised at how well some of the early teams did because the game was lower scoring in the early years, (although we seem to be returning to those kind of scores). College basketball was a minor sport in most areas prior to about the 1960’s and the caliber of completion- even in the Elite 8 may not have been as strong as in later eras. Of course teams from decades ago would have trouble dealing with the size and athleticism of modern teams, although that 1968 UCLA team went 6-8, 7-1, 6-5 across the front line. Kentucky this year was 6-9, 6-10, 6-7. A lot of the teams got hot at the right time. The 1981 Indiana team was 21-9 going into the tournament. A lot depends on who you play. Some years are stronger than others. Some years there are more upsets than others. Most national champions have the waves part for them to some extent.
I think the best way to react to this list is to not lose respect for the teams that aren’t high on it but to gain respect for the teams that are.