cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2006 Okay, so I was just watching ESPN Classic and they had a fantasy tourney of the greatest college basketball teams ever. I didn't see it all but did get to see the Final 4: 1976 Indiana, 1982 North Carolina, 1996 Kentucky, and 1969 UCLA. It ended up being UNC and IU in the finals, with the 82 Tarheels winning. I thought this was such bullshit. Obviously the people voting on ESPN.com were a bunch of marks that just said "OMG, Jordan was on that team, they'd have to win every game!" Nevermind that the 82 Tarheels won the title on one of the biggest bonehead plays of all time, with Fred Brown passing the ball to James Worthy. The hilarious thing is that nearly all of the analysts had UK 96 killing that UNC team, and all but Bill Walton had IU from 76 taking them out. Personally I would have had it come down to IU and UK, with the 76 Hoosiers taking it. Hard to pick against them considering they went undefeated. I'd also like to hear the justification for the 82 Tarheels beating the 84 Georgetown team that was more experienced. Did Fred Brown fuck up again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2006 The analyst didn't take into account most voters are predicatble dolts. How about Indiana St making the elite eight? It's not Larry Bird with McHale, Parrish, Johnson and Ainge. They also left off '63 Loyala and '00 Michigan St. Two teams that won National Championships. I'm sorry but you can't leave off two National Championship teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2006 They also left off '63 Loyala and '00 Michigan St. Two teams that won National Championships. I'm sorry but you can't leave off two National Championship teams. Why not? Not every team that won a national championship would be ranked as one of the 64 greatest ever. You have to take into account massive favourites that got beat ('75 Indiana, '83 Houston, '85 Georgetown, '91 UNLV) and teams that never even played in the tournament (I think I read that '54 Kentucky ended the season at No. 1 but declined a NCAA tournament bid, at a time when the NIT was more prestigious). The whole exercise was ridiculous, though. Most of the voters have never seen the great UCLA teams, let alone heard of the dominant USF teams with Bill Russell. Anything older than 25 years ago is dismissed, as is anything without a household name (which is why '76 Indiana didn't trounce '82 UNC -- "How the hell is Quinn Buckner going to beat MJ and Worthy?") Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilverPhoenix 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2006 I'd also like to hear the justification for the 82 Tarheels beating the 84 Georgetown team that was more experienced. Did Fred Brown fuck up again? This may be just the Big East Mark in me, but this seems to be fucking impossible to me. Unless James Worthy and Micheal Jordan shoot 80%, they're not going to beat one of the most disciplined teams of all time. Not with John Thompson at his best and Ewing being the one of the most dominant College Centers, ever (and he proved it in '84). People understandly realize that Jordan is the greatest Player of all time. But back in the College Game it wasn't the Jordan era for a reason. Ewing owned all at the time. It's a damn shame he never won a NBA Championship, so only Knicks and other knowledgeable fans know how good he was. And yes, I think he retired much too late. It was a joke to see him in anything other than Knick Blue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NYankees Report post Posted March 30, 2006 Hey!!! Are you trying to say it was a JOKE to see Ewing wearing a Sonics or Magic jersey?? If the Knicks didn't trade Mark Jackson or Rod Strickland in the early 90's, they probably would have won a championship. If Charles Smith didn't miss 5 layups in a row or John Starks shoot 2-18, the Knicks would have won a championship. God being a Knicks fan is the worst. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2006 I took a look at that UNC team's tourney run. Tell me if this sounds like a run from the greatest team ever: Beat James Madison 52-50. Beat Alabama 74-69 Beat Villanova 70-60 Beat Houston 68-63 Beat Georgetown obviously for the title by 1 (63-62 I think), Fred Brown, etc. I'm sorry, that just isn't a terribly impressive or dominant run. They did take out Olajuwon and Ewing I guess, but I don't think either of those teams were quite as good as they'd be in the next couple of years. The UCLA teams I think all cancelled each other out. As in we know about the run itself being the most dominant ever, but it's tough to single out that ONE team. The 69 team made that FF, but I might say the 73 team with Walton might be better. But who knows? I was surprised that the 92 Duke team didn't make it that far. But then they DID just barely beat a UK team with a bunch of white boy rejects and walkons from the Eddie Sutton era (and Jamal Mashburn). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted March 30, 2006 The whole exercise was ridiculous, though. Most of the voters have never seen the great UCLA teams, let alone heard of the dominant USF teams with Bill Russell. Anything older than 25 years ago is dismissed, as is anything without a household name Precisely. Which is why these arguments are pointless. Heck, most people voting probably barely watched the better teams from the 80's, also. You have to take into account massive favourites that got beat ('75 Indiana, '83 Houston, '85 Georgetown, '91 UNLV) and teams that never even played in the tournament (I think I read that '54 Kentucky ended the season at No. 1 but declined a NCAA tournament bid, at a time when the NIT was more prestigious). This, also. More often that not, the best team every year does not win the national title. Just what happens in a one-and-done scenario. And many of them were saying that you MUST win a national title to be considered a truly great team. Meh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangerous A 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2006 Seconded on the best team not winning the national title every year argument. I'd put that UNLV 91 team up against any team from any era. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 They also left off '63 Loyala and '00 Michigan St. Two teams that won National Championships. I'm sorry but you can't leave off two National Championship teams. Why not? Not every team that won a national championship would be ranked as one of the 64 greatest ever. You have to take into account massive favourites that got beat ('75 Indiana, '83 Houston, '85 Georgetown, '91 UNLV) and teams that never even played in the tournament (I think I read that '54 Kentucky ended the season at No. 1 but declined a NCAA tournament bid, at a time when the NIT was more prestigious). The whole exercise was ridiculous, though. Most of the voters have never seen the great UCLA teams, let alone heard of the dominant USF teams with Bill Russell. Anything older than 25 years ago is dismissed, as is anything without a household name (which is why '76 Indiana didn't trounce '82 UNC -- "How the hell is Quinn Buckner going to beat MJ and Worthy?") I see your point. I'd just say both Michigan St '00 and Loyala '63 are more deserving than Villanova '85 or Kansas '88. The latter being great cinderalla stories, but really not great teams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 I wonder if all the UCLA teams included didn't play a small factor in only one making the Final Four. My favorite team is Kentucky '96. I'm only comparing them to teams of my generation. So the great UCLA teams, Bill Russell's San Fran team, and the Indiana '76 team aren't included. Just the depth, and defensive pressure leading to the up tempo high scoring games that fit more into today's game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 I see your point. I'd just say both Michigan St '00 and Loyala '63 are more deserving than Villanova '85 or Kansas '88. The latter being great cinderalla stories, but really not great teams. This, I agree with. Especially on '88 Kansas. I'm usually not impressed with a one-man team enough to call them one of the greatest ever. '79 Indiana State is the only one I can think of that would impress me that much, just because Bird was that damn good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 Off topic but a classic hoops comment. Dick Vitale used to be a outstanding college basketball analyst. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilverPhoenix 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 Off topic but a classic hoops comment. Dick Vitale used to be a outstanding college basketball analyst. Yes. I noticed this. Whenever they show classic games with him on the mic, he brings it like Jim Ross did back when he was in NWA JCP/WCW. His knowledge of the game is immpeccable. What I wonder is when did Vitale start to become a shitty, coach K blowjob givin' mockery of himself?_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 Good question. I think Duke's rise to dominate program played a big part in the transformation from Dick Vitale to Duke Vitale. Let us also not forget Vitale's constant slobbering over all coaches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted March 31, 2006 As I said, if I really had to pick someone it'd be 76 Hoosiers. It's tough to argue against a team that went undefeated. The one loss they had in that 2 year period was to UK though, 1975 regional final. That was without Scott May however, who was out with a broken arm. Hell, Knight could have 5 titles right now had May not gotten hurt in 75 and Alan Henderson not gotten hurt in 1993. That said, in my lifetime UK in 1996 is the best team I've ever seen. Before 1986 it's hard to know how good a team REALLY was because of no shot clock, no 3 pt. line, etc. It's tough to say how good that UNC team from 1982 was, since they used that shitty 4 corners style. That's what is stunning about George Mason. They are flat out beating people. It's not that lame stuff like Valvano having his guys hack Houston and they missed FTs, making for an ugly and boring game (and let's face it, before the insane finish the NC St./Houston game was a piece of shit). NC St. and Nova only had a chance due to no shot clock or at least I don't think there was one in 85. Villanova was winning games in that 85 tourney like 50-45. GMU this year flat out beat UConn in a high quality game. On an unrelated note, why is it that CBS goes out of its way to not mention Kentucky teams in the highlight reels? I noticed that they went through various tourneys but mentioned nothing about the 1986 U of L win over Duke, skipped from Tyus Edney in 95 to Miles Simon in 97 (completely ignoring the best team I've ever seen, 1996 UK), and also mentioned nothing about the 1998 UK team that rallied from 17 down against Duke. The 1986 U of L/Duke game not being mentioned is a crime however. It's so historically important on a variety of levels: 1. It was Duke's first FF under Coach K. 2. It was U of L's last FF under Denny Crum. Kind of a passing of the torch really. 3. It was the last game before the 3 pt. line. 4. The game itself was quite good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
