[FBALL]

ESPN.com’s top 10 were:
1. 1968 UCLA, 2. 1996 Kentucky, 3. 1976 Indiana, 4. 1972 UCLA, 5. 1992 Duke, 6. 1982 North Carolina, 7. 1974 NC State, 8. 1956 San Francisco, 9. 1957 North Carolina, and 10. 1960 Ohio State, with honorable mentions to 1990 UNLV and 1954 Kentucky.

ESPN’s College Basketball Encyclopedia’s top 15 were:
1. 1973 UCLA, 2. 1976 Indiana, 3. 1968 UCLA, 4. 1956 San Francisco, 5. 1967 UCLA, 6. 1982 North Carolina, 7. 1992 Duke, 8. 1990 UNLV, 9. 1974 NC State, 10. 1996 Kentucky, 11. 1969 UCLA, 12. 1957 North Carolina, 13. 1948 Kentucky, 14. 2001 Duke, and 15. 1954 Kentucky.

Billy Packer’s top 25 in his book College Basketball’s 25 Greatest Teams were:
1. 1967-69 UCLA, 2. 1976 Indiana, 3. 1972-73 UCLA, 4. 1955-56 San Francisco,* 5. 1954 Kentucky, 6. 1960-62 Ohio State, 7. 1947-49 Kentucky, 8. 1961-62 Cincinnati, 9. 1974 NC State, 10. 1979 Michigan State,11. 1968 Houston, 12. 1964 UCLA, 13. 1988 Oklahoma, 14. 1957 North Carolina, 15. 1950 CCNY, 16. 1960 Cincinnati, 17. 1984-85 Georgetown, 18. 1982 North Carolina, 19. 1953 Indiana, 20. 1986 Louisville, 21. 1957 Kansas, 22. 1945-46 Oklahoma A&M, 23. 1983 Houston, 24. 1953 Seton Hall, 25. 1974 Maryland.

[FBALL]

^Just an example of how opinions vary and there is no absolute right answer.

[FBALL]

---
That's debatable. Ewing certainly was better over the longer haul.
Johnson was better all around for a shorter period of time.
But, AGAIN, your myopia over the NBA is IRRELEVANT.
We're talking about COLLEGIATE TEAMS.

My eye sight is fine not that it has anything to do with NBA players or not.

You seem to be fixated on the NBA. That is only one example I used.

[FBALL]

UK 96 average margin of victory was 21.3

[FBALL]

For the record it is clear that Billy Packer has no idea about college basketball after 1990. He, naturally is fixated on his era. The 50s, 60s and 70s

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
That's one thing we agree on.

[Observing]

ESPN.com’s top 10 were:
1. 1968 UCLA, 2. 1996 Kentucky, 3. 1976 Indiana, 4. 1972 UCLA, 5. 1992 Duke, 6. 1982 North Carolina, 7. 1974 NC State, 8. 1956 San Francisco, 9. 1957 North Carolina, and 10. 1960 Ohio State, with honorable mentions to 1990 UNLV and 1954 Kentucky.

ESPN’s College Basketball Encyclopedia’s top 15 were:
1. 1973 UCLA, 2. 1976 Indiana, 3. 1968 UCLA, 4. 1956 San Francisco, 5. 1967 UCLA, 6. 1982 North Carolina, 7. 1992 Duke, 8. 1990 UNLV, 9. 1974 NC State, 10. 1996 Kentucky, 11. 1969 UCLA, 12. 1957 North Carolina, 13. 1948 Kentucky, 14. 2001 Duke, and 15. 1954 Kentucky.

Billy Packer’s top 25 in his book College Basketball’s 25 Greatest Teams were:
1. 1967-69 UCLA, 2. 1976 Indiana, 3. 1972-73 UCLA, 4. 1955-56 San Francisco,* 5. 1954 Kentucky, 6. 1960-62 Ohio State, 7. 1947-49 Kentucky, 8. 1961-62 Cincinnati, 9. 1974 NC State, 10. 1979 Michigan State,11. 1968 Houston, 12. 1964 UCLA, 13. 1988 Oklahoma, 14. 1957 North Carolina, 15. 1950 CCNY, 16. 1960 Cincinnati, 17. 1984-85 Georgetown, 18. 1982 North Carolina, 19. 1953 Indiana, 20. 1986 Louisville, 21. 1957 Kansas, 22. 1945-46 Oklahoma A&M, 23. 1983 Houston, 24. 1953 Seton Hall, 25. 1974 Maryland.

If the discussion s ALL TIME, I don't think I'd put 96 UK ahead of 76 IU.
And if the discussion is ANYTHING, I'd never use Fudge Packer's opinon
for anything other than toilet roll.

[Observing]

My eye sight is fine not that it has anything to do with NBA players or not.

You seem to be fixated on the NBA. That is only one example I used.

Look , YOU are the one that keeps bringing the NBA into a discussion
of the best COLLEGE team. It's IRRELEVANT.

[FBALL]

I brought it in once as part of the total argument. YOU keep bringing that one point back up and inferring I have eye problems.

[Observing]

I brought it in once as part of the total argument. YOU keep bringing that one point back up and inferring I have eye problems.

Myopia doesn't mean eye problems in this context. When one uses
the term outside of an actual comment on visual acuity, it means
that you can't seem to look beyond one issue to see the big picture.
YOU introduced the notion of Vegas having better pros into
the debate about the best COLEGIATE team. When I shot that
down, you AGAIN raised this tangential issue with your irrelevant
comment about Ewing.

[FBALL]

Don't blame me because you said Grandmama was a better pro then Ewing. It is more than just superficial that those teams had more talented players on them.

I think you seem to be overlooking the fact that it was just part of the argument. A part that you have fixated on instead of looking at the big picture.

[Observing]

Don't blame me because you said Grandmama was a better pro then Ewing. It is more than just superficial that those teams had more talented players on them.

I think you seem to be overlooking the fact that it was just part of the argument. A part that you have fixated on instead of looking at the big picture.

Son, if you were able to understand that teams are the product of
the whole, and not just an aggregation of their individual talents,
you might understand that their professional outcomes have ZERO
to do with this debate. It's YOU that can't seem to look at the
big picture.

[FBALL]

Still fixating son.

Parts make up the big picture. It's you that refuses to see those parts as a whole. I have offered more than just NBA success. I can't help what you refuse to see.

[RunItUpTheGut]

96 Cats