Top 5 NCAA basketball teams of all time..

[kNicKz]

1999 Duke is the best team that they have ever had. 1992 Close second.

Obviously the UCLA dynasty is amazing but the field of recruiting and competition was incredibly lopsided back then

[KG215]

1. 71-72 UCLA. Undefeated (30-0) and had a scoring differential of +30.3 ppg. Outshot their opponents by a .504 to .382 margin. Featured Bill Walton, Keith Wilkes (Jamaal Wilkes), Henry Bibby, and even had Swen Nater on the bench (go ahead and look up his ABA-NBA career.)

2. 67-68 UCLA. 29-1. +26.2 ppg differential. Outshot their opponents by a .500 to .384 margin. Lost to #2 (at the time) Houston in the Astrodome game, 71-69. Beat #1 Houston (at the time) in a rematch in the NCAA semi's, 101-69 (and led by 44 points at one point), then beat Dean Smith's NC team, 78-55 (despite supposedly "sleep-walking" after their rout of the Cougars.) Featured Lew Alcindor (Kareem), and Lucuis Allen.

3. 66-67 UCLA. 30-0. +25.9 ppg differential. Outshot their opponents by a .519 to .392 margin. Featured Alcindor (29.0 ppg, 15.5 rpg, .667 FG%), and Lucius Allen. Started four sophs. Incidently, as freshman, they beat the #1 ranked UCLA varsity (ranked #1 at the time) in a pre-season scrimmage.

4. 68-69 UCLA. 29-1. Lost late season game to USC, 46-44. +20.9 ppg differential. Outshot their opposition by a .514 to .374 margin. Perhaps the most loaded roster in NCAA history. Alcindor, Curtis Rowe, John Vallely, and Sidney Wicks (look up his NBA career...and BTW, he wiped the floor with 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '70 NCAA Finals.)

5. 72-73 NC ST. 27-0 (ineligible for NCAA tourney.) +21.8 ppg differential. Outshot their opponents by a .520 to .437 margin. Featured David Thom,pson and 7-3 Tommy Burleson.

6. 73-74 NC ST. 30-1. +16.7 ppg differential. Outshot their opps by a .499 to .435 margin. Lost early season game against UCLA, 84-66. Came back to beat them in double OT in the NCAA semis, 80-77. Featured Thompson and Burleson.

Honorable mention... 73-74 UCLA. +19.4 ppg differential. .507 to .414 FG% differential. Had their 88 game winning streak snapped at Notre Dame, 71-70 (and lost after leading 70-59 with three minutes to go.) Came back to rout the #1 Irish a couple of weeks later, 94-75 (and led by 28 points at one time.). Beat the eventual National Champion Wolfpack, 84-66 early in the year (and lost to them in double OT in the semis, after blowing a seven point lead in the first OT.) Probably the greatest frontcourt in NCAA history, featuring Walton, Wilkes, Marques Johnson, Dave Meyers, and Richard Washington.

Interesting. So no '96 Kentucky, '82 UNC, '90 UNLV, etc.? Your top 6 teams ever, which is basically just 3 teams, are from a short 8 year window?

[LAZERUSS]

Interesting. So no '96 Kentucky, '82 UNC, '90 UNLV, etc.? Your top 6 teams ever, which is basically just 3 teams, are from a short 8 year window?

You're right...I forgot about the 72-73 Bruins, who also went 30-0. They had a +21.3 ppg differential, and outshot their opponents by a .519 to .396 margin. And who can forget Walton's NCAA Finals game, in which he scored 44 points on 21-22 shooting.

'90 UNLV deserves a vote, as do the '82 Tar Hills, (who may have the most talented team in college history (Worthy, MJ, and Perkins.) Still, despite a 32-2 record, and a NC, they only outscored their opponents by +11.3 ppg, and outshot them .537 to .466.

[KG215]

You're right...I forgot about the 72-73 Bruins, who also went 30-0. They had a +21.3 ppg differential, and outshot their opponents by a .519 to .396 margin. And who can forget Walton's NCAA Finals game, in which he scored 44 points on 21-22 shooting.

'90 UNLV deserves a vote, as do the '82 Tar Hills, (who may have the most talented team in college history (Worthy, MJ, and Perkins.) Still, despite a 32-2 record, and a NC, they only outscored their opponents by +11.3 ppg, and outshot them .537 to .466.

Ok, so let me get this straight before I attempt to get into an argument with you, because doing so is usually tiresome and pointless because you're very stubborn and fixed into your biases...

Adding the '72-'73 Bruins, 7 of the 10 best college basketball teams of all-time are all from the same 8 year stretch?

[Burgz V2]

You're right...I forgot about the 72-73 Bruins, who also went 30-0. They had a +21.3 ppg differential, and outshot their opponents by a .519 to .396 margin. And who can forget Walton's NCAA Finals game, in which he scored 44 points on 21-22 shooting.

'90 UNLV deserves a vote, as do the '82 Tar Hills, (who may have the most talented team in college history (Worthy, MJ, and Perkins.) Still, despite a 32-2 record, and a NC, they only outscored their opponents by +11.3 ppg, and outshot them .537 to .466.

if you are going to use point differential as the be all end all factor in GOAT team you should at least address the major weakness in that argument. The strength of schedule is not uniform from year to year, therefore that stat is meaningless without context.

[KG215]

if you are going to use point differential as the be all end all factor in GOAT team you should at least address the major weakness in that argument. The strength of schedule is not uniform from year to year, therefore that stat is meaningless without context.

Not to mention how much recruiting has evolved since the 60's and 70's.

[Burgz V2]

Not to mention how much recruiting has evolved since the 60's and 70's.

True. All around talent level has drastically increased as well. One can make the argument that the top talents are comparable, but as far as a full roster, no comparison.

[LAZERUSS]

True. All around talent level has drastically increased as well. One can make the argument that the top talents are comparable, but as far as a full roster, no comparison.

Take a look at UCLA's roster in 1974 (and they did not even win the NC.) Bill Walton Keith (Jamaal) Wilkes, Dave Meyers, Richard Washington, and Marques Johnson.

How about their backup center in 1973 who averaged 3.2 ppg and 3.3 rpg? None other than Swen Nater, and whom Walton called the toughest center he faced while in college. Go ahead and look up Nater's professional stats.

Alcindor's (Kareem's) 1969 Bruins fielded Sidney Wicks (who would absolutely destroy the 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '70 Finals), Curtis Rowe, and Steve Patterson...all of whom had pro careers...as well as quality college players like Lynn Shackleford and John Vallely.


And I'm sorry, but most historians list Alcindor and Walton among the top-5 ollege players of all-time. In fact, Alcindor would probably be a unnanimous #1. And given the fact that Walton was a major factor in UCLA's 88 game winning streak, and had arguably the greatest game in an NCAA Finals..in college history...I just don't think there is an argument for ANY other teams over the Alcindor and Walton title teams.

The only college team that could possibly be listed anywhere near as talented, in terms of pro talent, would have to be the '82 Tar Heels (Worthy, Perkins, and MJ), and they went 32-2 had were nowhere near as dominant against their peers. Hell, the '84 Tar Heels, with MJ, Perkins, and Brad Daughtery went 28-3 and lost in the second round against tgemple for cryingoutloud.

And in terms of complete domination, the '69 Bruins, who lost 71-69 to a team that would go 31-2, in a "regular season" game...and then just annihilate them by a 101-69, in a game that was nowhere indicative of the final score (the Bruins led by 44 points early in the 2nd half)...and then "sleep-walked" their way to a 78-55 win against a very loaded North Carolina team in the Finals....well, quite simply, the most dominant college team of all-time.

The only other team that could compare in terms of pro talent, and that won a national championship, was the 1990 UNLV Running Rebs. And they "only" went 35-5, with much less dominant ppg and FG% differentials.

Now, you could make an argument that the 90-91 Running Rebs were one of the greatest college teams of all-time..going 34-1, outscoring their opps by a whopping +28.4 ppg, and outshooting them by a staggering .538 to .396 margin..but alas...that one defeat came in the NCAA Finals...to a team that they destroyed a year earlier in the Finals by a 102-72 margin. What cold have been...

As for 75-76 Indiana? I was never really impressed with them. They did go 32-0, and they did have some pro talent (Buckner was probably the best pro, while May, Benson, Wilkerson, and Abernathy all played for a while.) However, their ppg differential was only +17.4. And they struggled to beat both Marquette and Alabama in the tourney. In fact, they easily could have lost to a Tide team that went 23-5 and finished sixth.

If you factor in record, differentials, post-season domination, and overall talent, the Alcindor and Walton Bruin teams were the greatest ever.

[LAZERUSS]

True. All around talent level has drastically increased as well. One can make the argument that the top talents are comparable, but as far as a full roster, no comparison.

You're kidding right? You mean college rosters where the team's best player averages 11-8 and jumps to the NBA in his next season, and where you know that if plyer is still playing by his junior season, he has no pro talent whatsoever? Where a stumblebum like 6-9 Tyler Hanbrough, who looked like he couldn't dribble or shoot at all in this year's NBA playoffs, wins College POY? C'mon...the talent levels of the college teams today is FAR behind those of the 60's and 70's. Hell, in 1968, Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Pete Maravich, and Kareem were still playing, and dominating, in college. Hayes would go on to lead the NBA in scoring the very next season, while Unseld would win both ROY and MVP. And we all know what Kareem did in his NBA rookie season, and then for years to come. He was shelling the likes of Hakeem and Ewing at age 39.

BTW, Alcindor's teams went 88-2 in his three years there, and those losses were by margins of 71-69 (and he was playing blind in that game), and a meaningless 46-44 loss to USC in his senior season. He won the NCAA Tourney MVP all three seasons, as well. I mentioned Walton's 44 point game in the '73 Finals, but Alcindor's '69 title game was nearly as equally impressive... 37 points on 15-20 from the field, and 7-9 from the line, with 20 rebounds...in a 92-72 romp.

Furthermore, I would argue that had Alcindor been able to play as a freshman, that he likely would have won four titles in row (which would have given Wooden a streak of TEN in a row, instead of "only" seven.) First of all, his soph team started four sophs, and waltzed to a 30-0 record and a dominating title. Secondly, the varsity team that he was ineligible for, was ranked #1 early on...and in a pre-season scrimmage, Alcindor's freshmen team beat them. That varsity team could "only" go 18-8 though, and didn't make the NCAA's. One can only wonder what Alcindor and his freshmen team could have added to that team.

But, if you are going to use this ridiculous argument that the talent is better today, than 20-30-40-50 years ago...well, let's just proclaim '13 Louisville as the greatest team ever.

[LAZERUSS]

1999 Duke is the best team that they have ever had. 1992 Close second.

Obviously the UCLA dynasty is amazing but the field of recruiting and competition was incredibly lopsided back then

It may have been, but Wooden was able to win with his talent, while Dean Smith had loaded rosters nearly every year, and only won twice.

[KG215]

It may have been, but Wooden was able to win with his talent, while Dean Smith had loaded rosters nearly every year, and only won twice.

Guess that part of level of competition flew right over your head. No one had as much talent as Wooden's UCLA teams when he was stockpiling future NBA players. Dean Smith was loading up on talent in an era when recruiting was much more evolved and a lot of the other top tier programs had similar depth and talent.

[LAZERUSS]

Guess that part of level of competition flew right over your head. No one had as much talent as Wooden's UCLA teams when he was stockpiling future NBA players. Dean Smith was loading up on talent in an era when recruiting was much more evolved and a lot of the other top tier programs had similar depth and talent.

Smith was coaching North Carolina when Wooden won his first two National Championships in 63-64 and 64-65, the second of which was with Gail Goodrich, a cast of no-names, and no starter over 6-5.

Smith was coaching NC in 64-65 when his heavily favored Tar Heels lost to a lousy Wake Forest team...and after which he was hung in effigy.

Smith was coaching a team of Charley Scott, Larry Miller, and Bill Bunting that was crushed by Wooden's 67-68 Bruins in the Finals, 78-55 (BTW, accounts of that game claimed that UCLA actually "sleep-walked" their way thru that win, on the heels of the absolute demolishing of 31-0 and #1 ranked Houston the game before.)

A year later (68-69), Smith took the bulk of that same roster (Scott, Bunting, Rusty Clark, and Dick Gruber) and his #2 Tar Heels down in flames in the NCAA semis against Purdue, 92-65...a team that Wooden's Bruins would slaughter in the Finals, 92-72.

His 69-70 Tar Heels, again with Scott, Dennis Wuycik, Bill Chamberlain, and Lee Dedmon, to an 18-9 record. And keep in mind that Wooden had now won his 6th title in 7 sevens at the time.

And by 71-72, Smith had a team with Bob McAdoo, Bobby Jones, George Karl, Wuycik, and Bill Chamberlain...that would go 26-5, and not even make it to the NCAA Finals. Of course, Wooden was going 30-0 and winning his 8th title in 9 seasons.

In 72-73 Smith's Tar Heels, with a roster of Bobby Jones, George Karl and Mitch Kupchak couldn't even make the NCAA tournament, losing to a 12-15 Wake Forest team.

How about Smith's 74-75 Tar Heel team? They had a roster of Phil Ford, Walter Davis, Kupchak, and Tommy LaGarde...and could only go 23-8 and not even make the NCAA tournament. BTW, those four players would go to be on the 1976 USA Olympic Basketball team. Oh, and BTW, in that 74-75 season, Wooden won his 10th title in 12 seasons, and retired.

Smith's 75-76 team, loaded with those same players,...blown out by Alabama in the NCAAs 79-64.

The 76-77 Tar Heels, with a roster of Davis, Ford, LaGarde, and Mike O'Koren...beaten by a 24-7 Marquette team that came into the NCAA tourney ranked 16th.

Disappointment-after-disappointment. Losing to lessor rosters and early in the NCAA tournament.

And how about MJ's three years in North Carolina? They finally win a National Championship in Jordan's first year, going 32-2. But every win in the NCAA tournament was close, including edging unranked James Madison, 52-50 in the first round. How does a team with James Worthy, Same Perkins, and Jordan...barely beat a Madison team that had virtually no NBA talent whatsoever?

Ok, Worthy goes to the pros. And a team of Jordan, Perkins, and now Brad Daughtery...goes 28-8, and loses to a 23-10 Georgia team with Vern Fleming in the NCAAs.

In their 83-84 season, the Tar Heels now have Jordan, Perkins, Daughtery, and Kenny Smith. They go 28-3 and lose to 21-9 Indiana in the East Regional Semis.

I could go on-and-on. Smith had the most loaded rosters in college history, going all the way back to the beginning of Wooden's sensational streak...and only two titles. Meanwhile, Wooden was not only winning 10 titles in 12 years, he was going 38-1 in the NCAA tournament in those years (and that one loss was in double OT to a 30-1 NC State team.) Not only that, but Wooden's Bruins were just blowing teams away in the NCAA tournaments. They were seldom even challenged.

Here again, my point was that Wooden, even with a plethora of talent...was WINNING with it. Smith, with as loaded rosters in the history of college basketball, won TWICE in 26 years, and in between had many disappointing seasons, and shocking losses.

Wooden could win a title with Goodrich, and very little else (and very little also being with as small a team as has ever won a title)...while Smith couldn't beat far lessor teams with MJ, Perkins, Daughtery, and Kenny Smith.

I'm sorry...but Smith was playing with a loaded deck as far back as the 60's, and certainly in the 70's and 80's. To say that the game became more competitive is not fair to a Wooden who was winning titles in a dominating fashion, in years in which Smith had comparable rosters.

[Burgz V2]

Smith was coaching North Carolina when Wooden won his first two National Championships in 63-64 and 64-65, the second of which was with Gail Goodrich, a cast of no-names, and no starter over 6-5.

Smith was coaching NC in 64-65 when his heavily favored Tar Heels lost to a lousy Wake Forest team...and after which he was hung in effigy.

Smith was coaching a team of Charley Scott, Larry Miller, and Bill Bunting that was crushed by Wooden's 67-68 Bruins in the Finals, 78-55 (BTW, accounts of that game claimed that UCLA actually "sleep-walked" their way thru that win, on the heels of the absolute demolishing of 31-0 and #1 ranked Houston the game before.)

A year later (68-69), Smith took the bulk of that same roster (Scott, Bunting, Rusty Clark, and Dick Gruber) and his #2 Tar Heels down in flames in the NCAA semis against Purdue, 92-65...a team that Wooden's Bruins would slaughter in the Finals, 92-72.

His 69-70 Tar Heels, again with Scott, Dennis Wuycik, Bill Chamberlain, and Lee Dedmon, to an 18-9 record. And keep in mind that Wooden had now won his 6th title in 7 sevens at the time.

And by 71-72, Smith had a team with Bob McAdoo, Bobby Jones, George Karl, Wuycik, and Bill Chamberlain...that would go 26-5, and not even make it to the NCAA Finals. Of course, Wooden was going 30-0 and winning his 8th title in 9 seasons.

In 72-73 Smith's Tar Heels, with a roster of Bobby Jones, George Karl and Mitch Kupchak couldn't even make the NCAA tournament, losing to a 12-15 Wake Forest team.

How about Smith's 74-75 Tar Heel team? They had a roster of Phil Ford, Walter Davis, Kupchak, and Tommy LaGarde...and could only go 23-8 and not even make the NCAA tournament. BTW, those four players would go to be on the 1976 USA Olympic Basketball team. Oh, and BTW, in that 74-75 season, Wooden won his 10th title in 12 seasons, and retired.

Smith's 75-76 team, loaded with those same players,...blown out by Alabama in the NCAAs 79-64.

The 76-77 Tar Heels, with a roster of Davis, Ford, LaGarde, and Mike O'Koren...beaten by a 24-7 Marquette team that came into the NCAA tourney ranked 16th.

Disappointment-after-disappointment. Losing to lessor rosters and early in the NCAA tournament.

And how about MJ's three years in North Carolina? They finally win a National Championship in Jordan's first year, going 32-2. But every win in the NCAA tournament was close, including edging unranked James Madison, 52-50 in the first round. How does a team with James Worthy, Same Perkins, and Jordan...barely beat a Madison team that had virtually no NBA talent whatsoever?

Ok, Worthy goes to the pros. And a team of Jordan, Perkins, and now Brad Daughtery...goes 28-8, and loses to a 23-10 Georgia team with Vern Fleming in the NCAAs.

In their 83-84 season, the Tar Heels now have Jordan, Perkins, Daughtery, and Kenny Smith. They go 28-3 and lose to 21-9 Indiana in the East Regional Semis.

I could go on-and-on. Smith had the most loaded rosters in college history, going all the way back to the beginning of Wooden's sensational streak...and only two titles. Meanwhile, Wooden was not only winning 10 titles in 12 years, he was going 38-1 in the NCAA tournament in those years (and that one loss was in double OT to a 30-1 NC State team.) Not only that, but Wooden's Bruins were just blowing teams away in the NCAA tournaments. They were seldom even challenged.

Here again, my point was that Wooden, even with a plethora of talent...was WINNING with it. Smith, with as loaded rosters in the history of college basketball, won TWICE in 26 years, and in between had many disappointing seasons, and shocking losses.

Wooden could win a title with Goodrich, and very little else (and very little also being with as small a team as has ever won a title)...while Smith couldn't beat far lessor teams with MJ, Perkins, Daughtery, and Kenny Smith.

I'm sorry...but Smith was playing with a loaded deck as far back as the 60's, and certainly in the 70's and 80's. To say that the game became more competitive is not fair to a Wooden who was winning titles in a dominating fashion, in years in which Smith had comparable rosters.

all you're doing is rambling and regurgitating, yet, nothing you say actually addresses our point. You are addressing all of these teams in isolation of the context they played in. So what if Dean Smith's later teams were stacked? That was a time that their were many other teams that were just as talented. Every team you mentioned had far and away the best talent in the country. FAR FAR and away.

[LAZERUSS]

all you're doing is rambling and regurgitating, yet, nothing you say actually addresses our point. You are addressing all of these teams in isolation of the context they played in. So what if Dean Smith's later teams were stacked? That was a time that their were many other teams that were just as talented. Every team you mentioned had far and away the best talent in the country. FAR FAR and away.

I just completely refuted this point. How does a Carolina team with MJ, Worthy, and Perkins, barely beat a James Madison team with no NBA talent whatsoever. Or a team with MJ, Perkins, and Brad Daughtery lose to a team with Vern Fleming (as well as only going 28-8)?

Those "other teams" had nowhere near the talent that Smith's Tar Heels had in the 70's an 80's. Hell, he couldn't even get some of his teams into the NCAA tourney, and there were times when he did, that they shocked by far lessor teams.

BUT, if you are claiming that these teams had "far and away the best talent" in the country...you were right. How come they couldn't win titles going away like Wooden's Bruins?

Furthermore...are you still claiming the college teams of THIS era are deeper and more talented? When freshmen average an 11-8 and jump to the NBA? When you already know that if a player is playing in his junior year, he has no NBA talent at all? Or a player like Tyler Hanbrough, who can't dribble or shoot, wins the College Player of the Year?

C'mon...use some common sense here. The great teams of 20-30-40 and even 50 years ago, were considerably more dominant than these "watered down" rosters of unknowns who play together for one year and disband.

I'm sorry, but I saw enough of players like an Alcindor, at age 39, just waxing the likes of Hakeem and Ewing...to know that the players and teams of the 60's were just as great as the best of the 80's and 90's.

And once again, if you honestly believe that the more modern era of college basketball is of a higher quality...than let's just forget the players and teams of 10-20-30-40- and 50 years ago. After all, we have seen a ton of Shaq's and Jordans in college and the pros in the last 10 years, right? Same with Kareem' and Chamberlain's...players who were 7-2 barefoot, and with far more skills than the 6-10 Anthony Davis's of this era.

[KG215]

I just completely refuted this point. How does a Carolina team with MJ, Worthy, and Perkins, barely beat a James Madison team with no NBA talent whatsoever. Or a team with MJ, Perkins, and Brad Daughtery lose to a team with Vern Fleming (as well as only going 28-8)?

You bring-up two games and expect me to take you seriously? I'm not going to go through the trouble (right now) but I'm guessing if I went and looked up the scores from those UCLA tournament runs, I could find some single digit wins against no-name, far inferior teams, and try and make a point too. But it'd be pretty damn ignorant of me.

Those "other teams" had nowhere near the talent that Smith's Tar Heels had in the 70's an 80's. Hell, he couldn't even get some of his teams into the NCAA tourney, and there were times when he did, that they shocked by far lessor teams.

You mean at a time when the ACC was loaded and very top heavy, and only one team from the conference made the NCAA Tournament? Yeah....what a shame.

Furthermore...are you still claiming the college teams of THIS era are deeper and more talented? When freshmen average an 11-8 and jump to the NBA? When you already know that if a player is playing in his junior year, he has no NBA talent at all?

No, this is one of the weakest eras in college basketball history. I just think it's hilarious that you think 7 or 8 of the 10 best teams EVER all came one right after the other in an 8 year window.

Or a player like Tyler Hanbrough, who can't dribble or shoot, wins the College Player of the Year?

I'm not even sure if I should address this since it's unbelievably ignorant, but why not...

Can't dribble or shoot? I mean what in the f**k does that even have to do with anything? He was a frontcourt player, so why did he need to be able to shoot and dribble at a high level? I mean I could list all the records he broke, but that would pointless, because it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about here.

And once again, if you honestly believe that the more modern era of college basketball is of a higher quality...than let's just forget the players and teams of 10-20-30-40- and 50 years ago. After all, we have seen a ton of Shaq's and Jordans in college and the pros in the last 10 years, right? Same with Kareem' and Chamberlain's...players who were 7-2 barefoot, and with far more skills than the 6-10 Anthony Davis's of this era.

I think you repeated yourself and said basically the same thing 3 or 4 times in that one post alone. I don't know who it's directed at, but I don't think myself or Burgz have said anything about teams specifically from the last 5-10 years.

I respect your knowledge of past eras, but you're hands down one of the worst and most infuriating posters on here because you aren't even a little bit open-minded.