Was '23-24 UConn the Best Men's College Basketball Team in the Modern Era?

The Champions Classic is tonight, which to me always marks the real start of the college basketball season. Now that the dust has had time to settle on last year, and our (likely biased) passions for our own teams and their own histories have died down, what better way to get hyped for the upcoming season than to revisit the following question: was last year's UConn team actually the best men's team in the modern era?

Earlier this year, we took a look at how the most dominant teams in the NCAA tournament who made the Final Four have fared once they got there. We said that history was not on UConn's side, as the most dominant teams up until the Final Four don't close the deal as often as you think. Well, UConn not only closed the deal, they closed it in dominant fashion, winning their Final Four game against deadly (and pesky) Alabama by 14 (86-72), and then beat Purdue in the National Championship game by 15 (75-60) in even more dominant fashion. This resulted in UConn winning back-to-back national championships, the first to do so since Florida in '06-07. Notably, they did so by winning every NCAA tournament game in both years by double-digits.

When I did my analysis of dominant NCAA tourney teams, I really didn't think UConn was the best team ever (or at least not the best team in the modern era, which we'll call 1984-85 to the present). But I also didn't really know where they fell either. So, I decided to find out.

Below is a spreadsheet showing all the teams I considered, as well as the relevant metrics that I looked at to help decide the historical pecking order. Chief among them:

• Aggregate wins and losses

• Lowest (worst) and highest (best) rankings in the AP Polls, and if that ranking was ever #1, how many weeks that team spent at the top

• Average margin of victory (MOV) across the season

• Strength of schedule (SOS, more on this in a second)

• A team's "Simple-Rating-System" (SRS) figure. This is an easy and sound way to incorporate both a team's dominance (best measured by MOV) and a team's strength of schedule (SOS). This takes a team's MOV, and then either adds or subtracts our subject team's opponents' average MOV. This latter part is the strength of schedule component (SOS). This can be either a positive (if our subject team's opponents average MOV is positive) or a negative (if our subject team's opponents have a negative MOV). A team with a positive strength of schedule would be added to the subject team's MOV to get to their SRS, while a team with a negative strength of schedule would subtract from it. To give two quick examples, if our team beats its opponents by an average of 5 points per game, and our team's opponents beat their opponents by an average of 2 points per game, our SRS rating would be 7.0 (5 points for MOV and +2 points for strength of schedule, or SOS). By contrast, if our team's opponents lost their games on average by 2 points, then our SRS would be 3 (5 points for MOV less -2 points for SOS). While you can certainly make this more nuanced by looking at everything on a per possession basis, as someone like KenPom does, box scores that supply this data are not readily available for a good chunk of the period we're discussing. It's true that pure win margins don't specifically account for possessions, but ultimately, do we care if a team plays faster and wins by 20 with more possessions or plays slower and wins by 20 with fewer possessions? Since each team gets the same number of possessions in a game, from a basketball perspective, I'm not sure we do.

• NCAA Tournament figures, including:

  • The subject team's seed in the tourney (including if they were the overall #1 seed)

  • The average and combined seeds of the teams they played in the tournament (lower is better here)

  • The average and combined SRS ratings of the teams they played (higher is better here)

  • Average MOV and total MOV (the latter is the total number of points a team won or lost all their games by, whereas the former is the average amount they won their games by)

• Lastly, whether a team actually won the title or not, with extra credit being given for going back-to-back champs

Here's my table (click to enlarge in case you don't have eagle-eye vision):

What follows is hopefully a very fun trip down college basketball memory lane to get you excited for the upcoming season. But before we start our trip, let's lay out 2023-24 UConn's resume, and then we can compare it to other teams.

• UConn this season won 37 games and lost 3. In the pre-tournament (regular) season, they went 31-3.

  • Key wins included:

    • A 10 point win over #15 Texas at Madison Square Garden (de facto home game)

    • An 11 point win over #9 North Carolina, also at Madison Square Garden

    • A 13 point win over #10 Gonzaga in Seattle (de facto road game)

    • A 14 point win over #18 Creighton at home

    • A 28 point win over #4 Marquette at home

    • Another win over #8 Marquette on the road, this time by 7

    • One final win over #10 Marquette in the Big East Final, this time by 16

  • Losses were to #5 ranked Kansas (65-69), to unranked Seton Hall on the road (75-60), and lastly, to #15 ranked Creighton on the road (85-66).

• They won their last 7 regular season and conference tourney games, and then won 6 more in the tournament, for a 13 game win streak to end the year.

• They won both their regular season and conference tournament titles, comfortably (by 4 games in the regular season, and though St. John's played UConn tough in the Big East tourney, UConn's average MOV was 16 in their conference tournament)

• This allowed them to finish the regular season as the #1 ranked team in the country, a spot they held for 7 weeks during the season (more than 1/3 of the year).

• The lowest they were ever ranked in the AP Poll was #6.

• Their average margin of victory (MOV) was 18.1 points, and their SRS ranking was 26.7.

  • We'll provide more perspective on this in a moment, but for now, only 3 other teams in the modern era who actually won the title finished with a higher SRS rating ('04-05 North Carolina (28.42), '00-01 Duke (32.18), and '95-96 Kentucky (32.14))

  • As noted above, SRS = Simple Rating System, which takes a team's average MOV and adds to it the average MOV for all that team's opponents (the latter effectively measures strength-of-schedule)

• As the overall #1 seed, they won every game in the NCAA by double-digits, and became only the fourth team to do so in the modern era (the others were '00-01 Duke, with an average tournament MOV of 16.7; '17-18 Villanova, who had an average tournament MOV of 17.7; and last year's UConn team, who had an average tournament MOV of 20.0)

• UConn's average margin-of-victory (MOV) was 23.3 in the NCAA tournament

  • This was not only 3 points better than last year's team, but is the best ever among national champions (and 2nd all time to the 1992-93 Kentucky team (24.2), who lost in the Final Four).

• UConn won its 6 tournament games by a combined 140 points, which is the most all time (exceeding the previous record holder, 1995-96 national champion Kentucky, by 11 points)

• UConn became the 5th overall #1 seed to win the title

• UConn went back-to-back, becoming the first repeat national champs since the 2006-07 Florida Gators

Comparing the '22-23 UConn Team to the '23-24 UConn Team

Let's first compare this year's UConn team to last year's, for perspective. As we'll quickly see, this year's team was far superior in almost every way, both in the regular season (the '23-24 team reached #1 in the rankings, and spent quite a bit of time there, they had far fewer losses, etc.) and in the tourney (bigger margin of victory, far better competition, etc.). UConn was dominant in the tournament last year, but this year UConn was both more dominant in the NCAA tourney and they had a much better regular season.

2020-21 Baylor Bears

Now let's compare '23-24 UConn to non-UConn teams of the past. Let's start with the 2020-21 Baylor team, who were dominant all year long and who faced one of the strongest national title opponents ever in undefeated Gonzaga that year, and then absolutely obliterated them in one of the most hyped national title games ever (though unfortunately it was played in front of no fans because of COVID). Baylor dropped only 2 games that season, and never fell below #3 in the rankings. This Baylor team played like Houston does now: like some junkyard dogs. Except this Baylor team could both shoot and score, whereas Calvin Sampson's Houston teams seem to repeatedly struggle to do so.

In regular season statistics, this is arguably a toss up, and Baylor may even get the nod here. Baylor's average MOV that year in the regular season was 19.7 compared to UConn's 17.2, and Baylor's only regular season loss that season was to Kansas on the road by 13, 58-71 on 2/27/21. It also wasn't exactly Baylor's fault they never made it to #1 in the rankings either given Gonzaga started at #1 and never lost (Baylor did reach #1 in the Coaches polls, but since the AP polls go back much farther, we're focusing more on those for comparisons sake). This compares to UConn, who spent 7 weeks at #1 in '23-24. But the real differentiating factors here come in the post season, where UConn won its conference tournament and Baylor did not (#12 AP poll ranked Oklahoma St. handed Baylor it's second loss of the season in the Big 12 tourney semi-finals, 83-74).

Then there's NCAA tournament dominance. While Baylor was 1 point away from winning all of its games by double-digits, and against stronger competition, '23-24 UConn distinguishes itself here, averaging a MOV of 23.3 compared to Baylor's 15.3. Additionally, game control stats indicate the same thing. UConn trailed for just 6 minutes and 17 seconds the entire tourney, with the largest deficit being 5 to Alabama (a game they were leading 81% of the time, with Bama leading 8% and 11% of the game being tied). Baylor was given a solid run for their money by Villanova in the Elite 8, and trailed for most of the first half and all the way through the middle of the 2nd half (and by as much as 7). In total during the '20-21 tournament, Baylor trailed for 22 minutes and 16 seconds (see the tables below). Baylor was in pretty firm control of the rest of its games, but not like UConn was, as the tables below show. Bottom line, '20-21 Baylor is probably much higher on the short list of best teams in the modern era than even I appreciated (it being a COVID season likely is a factor of their tendency to be forgotten), but they're not quite on par with '23-24 UConn.

2017-18 Villanova Wildcats

What about 2017-18 Villanova? This Villanova team too makes a strong case. 8 weeks at number #1 during the regular season (versus UConn's 7), and like UConn, they never dropped below #6 in the rankings. Villanova's average MOV that year was 16.40, below UConn's 18.10, but that is presumably partly due to the former's harder schedule that year (10.24 SOS compared to UConn's 8.6). SRS ratings for the two are almost identical: 26.64 for '17-18 Villanova and 26.70 for '23-24 UConn. Both were overall #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament and both won the Big East regular season and conference tourneys. Each won every won of their NCAA tournament games by 10+ points, and the level of competition too is almost identical.

Here again, tournament dominance sets UConn apart. Michigan was beating Villanova for almost 3/4 of the first half of the national championship game, with Villanova's biggest deficit being 7. Texas Tech was up by 8 early in the first half of their Elite 8 game against Villanova, and West Virginia was up 5 with just less than 15 minutes to play in the second half in the Sweet Sixteen. These aren't huge deficits by any stretch, but UConn not only never trailed for this long (or by that much, that many times), but the amount of time UConn did trail (demonstrated by overall game control) tilts decidedly in UConn's favor in this case as well (see tables below again). Again, UConn trailed in only 5 minutes and 38 seconds of game play. Villanova trailed in almost 32, more than 3/4 of a game. At best, the 2017-18 Villanova and UConn seasons are a tie until you get to margin of victory in the tourney. That, combined with UConn going for a repeat, puts them over the top of yet another admittedly awesome team.

2011-12 Kentucky Wildcats

The next team worth inquiring about is the 2011-12 Kentucky team. Anthony Davis (who won the national player of the year award that year), Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Doron Lamb and four other future NBA players led this team to a 38-2 season. They spent 10 weeks at #1 that year, earned the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tourney, and ultimately won the national title. But besides having one fewer loss and more weeks atop the AP poll, there's really no statistical category that makes you believe this Kentucky team was better than '23-24 UConn. '23-24 UConn's Big East also surpassed the SEC's 10.09 SRS (4th of all conferences in the country that year) and 6.24 SOS (also 4th that year) with a 12.82 SRS (3rd of all conferences) and a 9.58 SOS (1st / toughest of all conferences). Even if you wanted to give the nod to Kentucky during the regular season, UConn's dominance in the tournament again sets it apart. Prior to the SEC Conference Tournament, Kentucky had only lost on the road at Indiana on an incredible last second 3 point shot at Assembly Hall by Christian Wofford in December (note the classic Dicky V call in that video). But in the SEC tournament title game, unranked Vanderbilt (25-11, 10-6 in the SEC) shocked Kentucky 71-64. The weaker average MOV, the weaker SOS, the lack of conference tourney title, and Kentucky winning their NCAA tourney games by half the margin as '23-24 UConn did again gives UConn the edge here despite this Kentucky team being loaded with NBA talent.

2008-09 North Carolina Tar Heels

How about 2008-09 North Carolina? Though they don't get talked about enough, this was arguably one of the most talented teams of all time. Four top-ten high school players (albeit from different classes, but still), nine in the top 50, and 7 future NBA players (Hansbrough got picked #13 overall in the 2009 Draft, while Lawson went 18th, Ellington went 28th, and Danny Green went 46th; Ed Davis subsequently went #13 overall in 2010, and Tyler Zeller went 17th overall in 2012; Larry Drew went undrafted but would play in the league).

This was the '08 team's revenge tour after getting knocked out in the Final Four the previous year by eventual national champion Kansas. Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson, Danny Greene, Wayne Ellington and Deon Thompson led Carolina to a 34-4 campaign that year. Carolina started the season ranked #1, spent the first 8 weeks of the year there, and then ended the year at #2. Shockingly, this Carolina team actually started ACC conference play 0-2, losing to Boston College 78-85 at home on January 4th, and then losing to #4 Wake Forest 89-92 on the road in Winston-Salem a week later. They wouldn't lose again until February 21st when they lost at College Park to a very mediocre 17-9 Maryland team, 85-88 in OT. North Carolina won the regular season ACC title at 13-3, but Duke actually took home the ACC conference tourney after Carolina lost to #22 ranked Florida State in the semi-finals, 70-73. Here's how that season's Carolina team stacks up statistically compared to '23-24 UConn:

Notably, the '08-09 North Carolina team was the only team we've considered yet who had even remotely comparable dominance in the NCAA tournament to what '23-24 UConn had, winning all of their games by at least double-digits, and by an average of 20.2 (including wins by 14 and 17 in the Final Four and national championship game respectively). The ACC had SRS and SOS scores of 12.49 (1st of all conferences) and 7.82 (3rd of all conferences) that year as well, which compares reasonably well with '23-24 UConn's Big East (12.82 SRS (3rd of all conferences) and a 9.58 SOS (1st / toughest of all conferences)).

Nonetheless, UConn gets the nod here too: their regular season losses weren't as bad, they won their conference tourney when Carolina didn't, they had higher MOV's and a tougher SOS, and their NCAA tournament performance was better as well (bigger MOV's against tougher opponents, though not by the margin UConn exceeded other teams we've looked at by). In terms of raw NBA talent, Carolina's 4 first round NBA draft picks (Tyler Zeller didn't play much during the '08-09 campaign, or that would have made 5), as well as second round pick Danny Green, make the '08-09 Carolina team probably second best of all time, behind the '06-07 Florida team that we'll discuss in a moment. But ultimately what matters is what you do on the court, and while impressive, the '08-09 Tar Heels don't have the resume or record that '23-24 UConn does.

2007-08 Kansas Jayhawks

The team that beat this North Carolina team the year before--the 2007-08 Kansas squad--deserves some evaluation, despite being often overshadowed by what else happened around them that year. Similar to the 1998-99 season, there's an argument to be made that the team that won the national championship in this year was the third best team that season: not the first. It's not a particularly good argument, but it's an argument.

This Kansas team started the year at #4 in the rankings, and subsequently went 20-0 to start the season. Amazingly, however, they never reached #1 in the rankings. They got as high as #2 during that stretch, and they'd finish the year at #4. North Carolina started 18-0 and would hold the #1 spot until their loss at Maryland on January 19th, and then Derrick Rose's Memphis team, who started the year 26-0, and wouldn't lose until the end of February, took over the top spot for most of the rest of the season. Kansas only playing three ranked teams during the regular season didn't help their case (especially considering they lost to two of them in Big 12 play), but the Big 12's 12.36 SRS and 7.41 SOS that year helped keep Kansas's own strength of schedule a reasonable 7.87 (though this would be helped by NCAA tourney competition some). Kansas would would go on to share the Big 12 regular season title with Texas, but in the Big 12 tourney, Kansas got the better of #6 ranked Texas in the title game, 84-74. This was enough to give Kansas a 1 seed in the NCAA tourney, along with North Carolina, Memphis, and Kevin Love, Darren Collison and Russell Westbrook's UCLA team (who was playing in their third straight Final Four).

Kansas's tourney was pretty uneventful until the Elite 8. Prior to that point, they won by 24, 19, and 15, against Portland St., UNLV, and Villanova, respectively. Then they ran into Steph Curry's Davidson team, who was a #10 seed that year. Curry had previously scored 40 points against Gonzaga in the first round (including 30 in the 2nd half), 30 against Georgetown in the second round (helping Davidson erase a 17 point 2nd half lead by Georgetown), and then in Detroit against Wisconsin in the Sweet 16, Curry went for 33 to beat the Badgers convincingly, 73-56. Though Kansas was favored by 9 points, and while neither team scored 60 points, the Kansas Davidson game was somehow still one of the most exciting Elite 8 games ever. Kansas held Steph to 9-25 that night and escaped with a 59-57 victory to get to the Final Four, but that tournament run for Steph served as his coming out party, and the launching point to one of the greatest NBA careers ever.

North Carolina was one of the two teams that stood in Kansas's way all year that season, and Kansas got their shot at Carolina in the Final Four. Carolina started the year at #1 and stayed there for the first 11 weeks until late January, and would ultimately end the season at #1 as well. 32 wins and only two losses--one to Duke, and one to Maryland--though both at home, was enough to give them the overall #1 seed in the tourney. Coming into the Final Four, Carolina had won their games by 38, 31, 21, and 10, whereas Kansas had won theirs by 24, 19, 15, and 2, respectively. Both were playing very well, but Carolina was slightly favored over Kansas at -2.5.

This was arguably the strongest Final Four ever, as all four #1 seeds made the Final Four in San Antonio that year. But Kansas made a serious statement against Carolina, leading for all but 30 seconds in that game. Kansas absolutely punched Carolina in the mouth to start the game, leading by as much as 28 with less than 5 minutes left in the 1st half, and ending the 1st half up 17. Carolina battled back in the 2nd half, cutting the Kansas lead to 4 with just under 11 minutes left to play. But Kansas turned up the intensity again and pulled away in the last 5 minutes to win by 18.

The national championship game against Derrick Rose's Memphis--the other team that stood in Kansas's way this season--would turn into a grinder. The game went back and forth until Memphis started to pull away late in the 2nd half. Kansas was down 9 with only two minutes left before going on a 12-3 run that was capped off by Mario Chalmers hitting an all-time great 3 point shot at the end of regulation in insanely big, baggy shorts to send it to extra time. Memphis went cold in overtime and Kansas won 75-68.

So was this often forgotten Kansas team better than '23-24 UConn? In a word, no. Kansas had a great regular season that year, but UConn's was better. The quality of UConn's wins particularly stands out. Kansas only had 1 win against a ranked team in the regular season (59-55 against #22 ranked USC on December 2nd). UConn had 6, and 5 of which were against top 15 ranked teams, and none of which were particularly close (10 points over #15 Texas, 11 over #9 Carolina, and 13 over #10 Gonzaga, 28 points over #4 Marquette, and 8 points over #8 Marquette again). Factoring in the '23-24 Big East's stronger SRS and SOS ratings only confirm this further.

Then in the tourney, UConn again distinguishes itself. Steph Curry or not, UConn was never tested the way either Davidson or Memphis tested Kansas (Curry hardly shot the lights out that night, going 9-25, and Davidson only scored 57 points total). Our table below shows that Kansas may have played similar quality competition in the NCAA compared to UConn (based on SRS ratings), but what UConn did to their competition makes this an easy call too. UConn beat their opponents by an average of 9 points more than Kansas, and combined throughout the tourney, won by a total of 55 more points than Kansas did. The repeat factor goes in UConn's favor too. '23-24 UConn was unequivocally better than '07-08 Kansas.

'06-07 Florida Gators

What about the 2006-07 repeat Florida team? Despite being absolutely loaded with talent (the Gators had three starters drafted in the top 10 picks of the 2007 NBA Draft, and two more in the 2nd round for 5 overall), this team under the microscope was surprisingly underwhelming. The Gators' 35-5 campaign during the regular season included 8 weeks at #1 that year (including as the pre-season #1), never falling below #6, and ending the year at #3. Notably, however, the insanely talented '06-07 Gators regular season included a very disappointing end, where they lost 3 of their last 5, all to unranked teams, and all by double-digits. Fortunately for Florida, this was still enough to win the SEC regular season title.

The Gators would quickly find their footing, however, and go on to steamroll their opponents in the SEC tournament to win that title too (beating Georgia by 17, Mississippi by 21, and Arkansas by 21). One might think Florida's late season collapse would be indicative of a weak SEC that year, but that wasn't actually true. The SEC's 12.94 SRS and 7.92 SOS in 2006-07 was 2nd in the nation on both accounts. But while this is very solid, it ultimately is not quite as strong as the Big East was this year.

The hallmark of the regular season was a 86-60 beatdown of Ohio State (albeit at home), but Florida would only beat one other team ranked in the top 20 the rest of the season (they only played 5 ranked teams the whole year). They had previously lost to #10 Kansas in Las Vegas on November 25th in OT, but after the Ohio State game, Florida would only play Vanderbilt (ranked #24), Kentucky (#20th) and Alabama (#25) the rest of the season. While they won all three of those games, it's for this reason that their SOS this year was an underwhelming 6.59, which is among the lowest we'll see in our whole comparison analysis. Incorporating the weak strength of schedule with the 3 losses in the last 5 games (not to mention the 5 losses overall), and the regular season for the '06-07 Florida team is arguably a liability in their argument as the modern-day GOAT rather than an asset.

Despite the tough close to the regular season, Florida entered the NCAA tourney as the #1 overall seed. Florida faced about as hard of seeds as you could in the NCAA tourney as a 1 seed (16, 9, 5, 3, 2, and then 1 in the natty), but the SRS ratings of these teams up until the Final Four weren't particularly strong. They also didn't exactly dominate their opponents either, winning each tournament game from the second round on by 7, 8, 8, 10, and 9 points respectively. Even the Ohio State team that Florida beat in a rematch in the national championship game had an SRS of 21.54, almost a full 3.5 points below this year's Purdue team that UConn handled.

Even if Florida didn't have the shaky regular season that they did, UConn's dominance in the NCAA tourney is just night and day compared to Florida's. UConn beat their (better) opponents by 9 points more per game than Florida did. Their dominance is even more apparent when it comes to game control. As we've already noted several times by now (though it deserves repeating), UConn trailed for just 6 minutes and 17 seconds during the '23-24 tourney. The 2006-07 Florida team trailed for 61, or just over an entire game's worth of time. Thus, while it's hard to say that a team with 3 Top 10 NBA picks and 5 NBA players overall, and a team who repeated national championships, no less, isn't the best team in the modern era, they just weren't. Florida may have been more talented, but that's all they had over '23-24 UConn. These two teams both repeated, but after that, there isn't much of a comparison here.

2004-05 North Carolina Tar Heels

The '04-05 national championship Carolina team led by Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants and Sean May is an interesting candidate to compare against UConn too, though they ultimately come up short as well. Let's pull up our comparison table.

The first thing you should notice is Carolina's very strong SRS score, 28.42. Only 12 teams in the modern era (again, we define this as 1984-85 to the present) have had a stronger team rating. How they got to that rating is a little strange, however. Ranked pre-season #4, they lost their opening game to unranked Santa Clara 77-66 in Oakland, CA, a team that would go 15-16 that year and 7-7 in the West Coast Conference (which somehow got Santa Clara 3rd in the conference). This is arguably one of North Carolina's worst losses ever, even though it was effectively a road game (the fact they played a team like Santa Clara on the road at all, let alone that early in the season, is even more bizarre, but that's another story too). They then rattled off 14 wins in a row, including on the road at Indiana, and at home against #8 Kentucky (91-78). In non-conference play, besides the road game at Indiana at Assembly Hall (where Carolina won by 7), they won every game by at least 13 points, and on average in the non-conference, they had an MOV of 23.66 (including a seemingly random road game against #19 ranked UConn in February, which Carolina won 77-70, this non-conference MOV drops to 22.38).

One of the best things Carolina had going for it that season was the strength of the ACC, which had an SRS score of 14.50 (1st in the country) and a SOS of 9.07 (also 1st). UNC would lose only to Chris Paul's #4 Wake Forest team (95-82) and to #7 Duke (71-70) in conference play, and both were on the road. Their 14-2 conference record gave Carolina the regular season ACC title, which included an average MOV of 17.43 in , as we said above, a very strong conference (this compares favorably to UConn's 13.85 conference MOV in '23-24, and in a weaker conference than than the '04-05 ACC). All of Carolina's conference wins came by very healthy margins, and only the two losses mentioned above and 2 point wins against Maryland (on the road) and against Duke (at home) were decided by less than 10 points.

Despite this conference performance, however, UNC never got to #1 in the rankings that year, though it got as high as #2 (their lowest was #11, which happened after the season opening loss to Santa Clara). They almost assuredly would have gotten to the top spot had it not been for a dominant Illinois team that started the season 29-0, only to lose their very last game of the regular season by 1 to Ohio State on the road, after Matt Sylvester hit a 3 at the buzzer to ruin Illinois' undefeated regular season. Illinois finished the last 15 weeks of the season at #1.

Despite the strong conference performance, Carolina would be upset by #5 seed Georgia Tech in the ACC Tourney, 78-75. which was a team they beat by 22 in the regular season. This, combined with Illinois' Big Ten conference tourney title and dominant regular season performance was enough to give them, and not North Carolina, the overall #1 seed in the NCAA tourney.

Carolina drew the #1 seed in the Syracuse regional, but would play their first two games against Oakland and Iowa State in Charlotte. Carolina hammered both teams to face Kyle Lowry and Villanova in the Sweet 16 at the Carrier Dome, a team that had survived a near plane crash earlier that season. #5 seed Villanova was very much in control of this game, leading basically the entire first half by as much as 12 (21-9). Carolina would close the half on a run to cut the lead to 4, but they never led that first half, and the 4 point halftime deficit was the largest of the season (they had previously been down three, 3 times, and come back each time). The 2nd half of this game was a battle, and Carolina didn't lead until the 11:38 mark when they went up 43-42. They eventually got the lead up to 11 (61-50) with under 5 minutes left, and they were up 10 with 2:35 to go, but a late push by Villanova cut the lead to 2 with 39 seconds left (64-62). A pair of clutch free throws by Melvin Scott and a controversial foul call against Villanova in the final 10 seconds (negating an And-1 when Carolina was up 3) allowed Carolina to escape with a win, 67-66.

In the Elite 8 against Wisconsin, Carolina comfortably led almost the entire 1st half, and by as much as 11 (30-19), but Wisconsin battled back and closed the half on a 14-4 run to tie the game, 44-44. Wisconsin jumped out to a quick lead early in the 2nd half 49-44, but a 14-0 response run from Carolina gave them a 9 point lead again. Wisconsin cut the lead back to 2 by the midway point of the 2nd half (66-64), and had several opportunities to take the lead in the last 5 minutes of the game, but ultimately couldn't get over the hump. Carolina escaped another very close game to make it to the Final Four.

The Final Four game against Drew Neitzel, Shannon Brown, Mo Ager and Michigan State was very much a tale of two halves. Michigan State was the better team in the 1st half, controlling the offensive glass with 9 offensive rebounds, leading by as much as 8, and ultimately taking a 38-33 lead into the break. In the 2nd half, however, Carolina put the screws to the Spartans, outscoring them by 19 and winning 87-71. This second half was probably the best Carolina had looked all tournament.

In the national championship game against Illinois, which was one of the best ever, Carolina jumped out to a quick 9-2 lead, but Illinois answered with a 10-0 run. It would go back and forth like that the rest of the game, with Carolina building a lead, and Illinois responding. Carolina went to a steady dose of Sean May in the 2nd half, who Illinois simply had no answer for, and who they doubled too little and too late. But despite that, strong shooting from Dee Brown, Luther Head and Deron Williams kept Illinois in it, and a 10-0 run tied the game with 5 minutes left. Raymond Felton answered with a monster 3 to give Carolina the lead again on the next possession, but Luther Head hit a 3 for Illinois to tie the game again at 70 with 2:32 left. Illinois got a stop and had a chance to take the lead, but a Deron Williams 3 missed. A crucial turnover by Head with 30 seconds left (Illinois' only turnover of the entire half) and several great but missed looks from 3 in the closing minutes prevented Illinois from getting over the hump, and Carolina would survive. Carolina's win would give Coach Roy Williams his first national title, getting the monkey off his back as the winningest coach in the NCAA tournament without a ring (Williams to that point had 40 tourney wins and 5 trips to the Final Four without a title).

How does all this add up for the '04-05 Carolina team? The awful loss to Santa Clara, one more overall loss than '23-24 UConn, the lack of an ACC conference tourney title, and the close calls in the NCAA tourney help resolve this argument in favor of '23-24 UConn, despite Carolina's stronger SRS in a better ACC conference that year. As it often has so far, UConn really distinguishes itself against this UNC team in the NCAA tourney. Carolina faced very similar competition in the NCAA tourney in '04-05 as UConn did this season (based on SRS ratings, '04-05 Carolina's average opponent rating was 14.9 vs. UConn's 14.6), but UConn's MOV of 23.3 meaningfully exceeds Carolina's 13.8 by almost 10 points. This dynamic is just as true in the Final Four and National Championship games as it is for the earlier rounds in the tournament too. Additionally, UConn's 140 cumulative win margin across the tourney makes Carolina's 83 seem pedestrian (even though it's not). This Carolina team was a beast, but for a variety of reasons, they weren't as good as this year's UConn.

2004-05 Illinois Fighting Illini

While we're on the subject, what about that year's Illinois team? Is it possible that Luther Head, Dee Brown, Deron Williams and Co. were better than Carolina despite losing to them, and potentially better than '23-24 UConn too? First, Illinois averaged a 15.9 MOV that season vs. Carolina's 17.76 and '23-24 UConn's 18.1, and their SOS was 8.2 versus Carolina's 10.66 and UConn's 8.6. This puts Illinois' total SRS at 24.11 that year versus Carolina's 28.42 and '23-24 UConn's 26.7. Illinois therefore ranks below both of the other teams on all these important statistical metrics. For additional perspective, Illinois' 24.11 SRS puts it 20th on our list of teams in consideration, with their MOV 18th and their SOS 16th. The Big Ten's strength that year was not as strong as the ACC in '04-05 or the Big East in '23-24 either. So not particularly compelling statistics for Illinois at first glance.

Despite this though, Illinois' 29-1 regular season, with their only loss coming from a 3 point buzzer-beater on the road at Ohio State in the last game of the year, probably ranks above both Carolina's in '04-05 and UConn's in '23-24. Illinois' '04-05 regular season is among the most impressive of anyone we've looked at. They had solid non-conference wins, especially the demolishing of Chris Paul's #1 ranked Wake Forest team, 91-73 on December 1st, as well over #20 Gonzaga four days earlier. This is not to mention the four in-conference wins against ranked teams (including two on the road at Wisconsin and Michigan St, both of which were by double-digits). And 15 weeks at #1 is damn impressive, especially the last 15 weeks of the season.

In the NCAA tourney, overall #1 seed Illinois took care of business the first three rounds, winning by 12, 12, and 14 respectively. What happened in their Elite 8 game against #3 seed Arizona was live on in tournament lore, and it's this game that they're probably remembered for more than anything else. At one point Illinois was down by 15 with 3:28 to go, and then still down 8 with only a minute left, but stormed back in Chicago to tie the game in regulation and then win in overtime, 90-89, to advance to the Final Four. This is most certainly on the list of best NCAA tournament game finishes.

Illinois subsequently took down Rick Pitino's Louisville team in the Final Four, winning by 15 in nearby St. Louis in a game that was much closer than the final score indicates. Louisville took their only lead of the game 33-31 2 minutes into the second half, only to have it followed by a contested made 3 by Roger Powell on the very next possession to give Illinois the lead back that it would build on and never relinquish again. This game was somewhat strange in that it was generally a close game until the last 10 minutes or so, but somehow it never really ever felt like it was in doubt.

We've already talked about the 2005 national title game above, but from the Illinois perspective, those missed looks late in the game will probably haunt Williams, Head and the entire Illinois fan base forever. This was a year where someday it will be nice if the national championship teams can play at least best of 3 instead of the one game win-or-go-home we have now. I'm not sure Carolina still wouldn't get the edge in that kind of series, but that Illinois team was gutsy in the tournament. Very gutsy.

Ultimately though, Illinois' weaker MOV and SOS scores (relative to both '04-05 Carolina and '23-24 UConn), the near-death experience against Arizona in the tournament (in a de facto home game), and the loss to North Carolina in the national championship game (where they were at one point down 15 again, just as they were against Arizona) make it hard to argue the '04-05 Illinois team is the best in the modern era. Illinois battling back from down 15 twice in the tournament is extremely impressive, but it also probably shows they weren't the best team of the last 40 years (and probably not even the best team that season either). Consider that in perspective of '23-24 UConn's biggest deficit being 5, '20-21 Baylor's being 7, and '17-18 Villanova's being 8. Junior guard Deron Williams would ultimately go #3 in the NBA Draft later that spring, and Luther Head would also go in the 1st round to Houston at #24. Dee Brown would stick around for his senior year, and ultimately go 46th in the 2006 Draft, but Illinois would underwhelm that next year, going 26-7, finishing 3rd in the Big Ten, and losing in the 2nd round of the tourney as a #4 seed to #5 seed Washington. This '04-05 group gave Illinois fans an electric ride, but this probably isn't the best team.

2000-01 Duke Blue Devils

It doesn't take long to figure out that among the strongest competition for '23-24 UConn is the '00-01 Duke team. We talked about the '98-99 Duke team a little in our post from earlier this year (and we will again in a moment), but the '00-01 team was also loaded with talent. Additionally, this team actually did close the deal and win a national championship (whereas the '98-99 team did not).

The '00-01 Duke roster included 2000-01 National Player of the Year Shane Battier, Jason Williams (now Jay Williams, who would win National Player of the Year the next year in '01-02, and who is also now a familiar face on ESPN's NBA and college basketball coverage), Carlos Boozer, Chris Duhon, Mike Dunleavy, Nate James, as well as Reggie Love (who would later become a special assistant and personal aide to President Obama). Much of this team went on to the NBA: Battier would be selected #6 in the 2001 NBA Draft, Jay Williams would go #2 in the 2002 NBA Draft, Dunleavy would go #3 that same year, Boozer would go 35th in 2002 as well, and Chris Duhon would go 38th overall in the 2004 NBA Draft a couple years later.

The '00-01 team went 35-4, spending 5 weeks at #1 (which is where they ended the season) and finishing with an incredible SRS rating of 32.18. This Duke team wasn't exactly undersized this year (Boozer was 6'9", Dunleavy was 6'8" and Battier was 6'8" too), but they felt smaller than the '98-99 team (even though they were actually bigger than the '98-99 team). Likely contributing to this was how Duke played. The '98-99 Duke team took just under 19 3's a game, which put them at 90th in the nation that year in terms of frequency (Elton Brand being on that team also likely had something to do with the dip seen in the chart below). By contrast, the '00-01 Duke team took 27 a game, which was 2nd highest in the nation. Duke's 38.5% 3 point field goal percentage (27th in the country that year) perhaps justified them taking more 3's, but the contrast with even the team the year before (who took 21 3's a game) is pretty stark, especially considering both the '98-99 team and the '99-00 team had similar or better 3PT make rates. The '00-01 Duke team took (and made) so many 3's that it actually set the all-time record for 3 pointers made in a season (breaking the previous record set by the 1995 Arkansas Razorbacks). This team was one of the first to really rely heavily on the 3.

Moving beyond style, let's turn to substance. Of all the teams we've talked about so far, this Duke team probably has the most impressive regular season resume of anyone. Their wins were flat out awesome: 8 wins against ranked teams in the regular season, and 10 if you include the ACC tournament. They include:

• A neutral site win against #9 Illinois on November 28th, 78-77 (note that this game was at the Greensboro Coliseum, so it was probably a de facto home game)

• On the Road at #17 ranked Temple on December 2nd, 93-68

• At home against #10 ranked Virginia, 103-61

• At home against #25 Boston College, 97-75

• At home against #9 Wake Forest, 85-62

• On the Road at #8 Maryland, 98-96 in OT (this was the Jason Williams Miracle Minute game, where he scored 8 points in 14 seconds and Duke came back from being down 10 with a minute left to win in overtime)

• On the Road at #24 Wake Forest, 82-80

• On the Road at #4 North Carolina, 95-81

• Then in the ACC Tournament, against #11 Maryland in the semi-finals, 84-82

• In the Finals of the ACC Tournament, against #6 North Carolina, 79-53

Duke did have 4 losses this year, but none were "bad", and all were to to top 16 teams. First, they lost at #3 ranked Stanford (84-83) on December 21st, their only non-conference loss of the year. Then they lost three games in ACC play: first to #4 ranked North Carolina at home, 85-83, then at #12 ranked Virginia, 91-89, and finally at home to #16 Maryland, 91-80. Only the Maryland loss came by double-digits.

After beating Maryland by 2 in the semi-finals of the ACC Tournament, and then hammering their arch rival North Carolina in the final by 26 (79-53), Duke finished the year ranked #1 in the AP poll, and entered the NCAA tournament as a 1 seed in the East region (the NCAA didn't do the #1 overall seed thing until several years later, otherwise Duke almost for sure would have been that this year). When the tournament began, Duke was +250 to win it all in Vegas, which is incredibly short odds.

Duke took out #16 seed Monmouth in Round 1 with ease (though Jay Williams re-tweaked his ankle), hitting 7 of their first 9 shots and never looking back, winning 95-52. Based on what's said in later game films (no video of this game seems to exist on YouTube), it appears Duke never trailed in this game.

In Round 2, Duke took on Quin Snyder's #8 seed Missouri Tigers (Snyder is currently the Atlanta Hawks coach in the NBA), who had previously worked for Coach K from 1993-99. Missouri came out strong, taking a 16-10 lead at the 11 and a half minute mark, but Duke settled in, and a 20-3 run and 17 points from Jay Williams gave Duke a 15 point lead (41-26). Missouri closed the half on a 9-0 run on three consecutive 3's (two by Kareem Rush) to cut the Duke lead to 43-37 at the half.

Missouri kept up their momentum when the 2nd half begun, and put a scare into Duke well into the second half, cutting the lead to 2 three minutes into the second half (45-43), to 3 again at 14 and a half minutes, and then to 1 at the 10 and a half minute mark on another Kareem Rush 3. Duke took over after that, leading by 10+ for most of the rest of the second half, and ultimately won 94-81. Missouri would never lead again after the 7 minute mark in the 1st half (though they led by 9 minutes in that first half in total), but this game was much scarier for Duke than the box score indicates.

Against UCLA in the Sweet 16, Duke regained its dominant form. Mike Dunleavy took a shot to the face early and Duke started 1-6, all from 3, but their defense would give them an early lead that they would never relinquish in an ugly, ugly game. Both teams were cold, but Duke's defense was the difference, forcing 23 UCLA turnovers (equating to a very high 25% of their possessions). Duke led by 7 at the half, and UCLA went on a 9-0 run 5 minutes into the 2nd half to cut the lead to 3, but Duke quickly responded with a Jay Williams run of their own, taking the lead back up to 12. At one point Williams scored 19 points in a row for Duke, and would ultimately score 34 in the game (his 34 and Battier's 24 accounted for 58 of Duke's 76 points). UCLA would never lead after 2-0, and Duke would win by 13, 76-63, despite only hitting 8 of their 31 3's (25.8%).

In the Elite 8, Duke faced #6 seed USC, who had taken down Kentucky in the Sweet 16. USC led by as many as 21 in that game, only to see the lead cut to 1 twice by Tubby Smith's Kentucky squad. Coming into the game against Duke, USC had only trailed for 1 minute and 23 seconds in their three games in the NCAA tourney. This compared to Duke at just over 9 minutes (almost all of which came in the Missouri game).

USC jumped out to the early lead, but Duke pulled ahead at the 15:00 mark and led the rest of the half by as much as 12, closing the half with a 5 point lead, 43-38. Duke started the 2nd half cold, but still managed to extend the lead to 48-40. USC cut it to 3, but a long 3 from Williams after he had missed his previous 10 shots took the lead back to 6. Duke expanded the lead to 12 again at the 11 minute mark, and led comfortably the rest of the way, winning 79-69.

After the battles they had during the regular season, it seemed fitting that Duke would run into Maryland again in the Final Four, the fourth time these two would meet this season. Duke won the first game at Cole Fieldhouse in the Jason Williams Miracle Minute on January 27th, but Maryland got redemption at Cameron later that February on Senior Day, only to see Duke nip them by 2 in the third meeting in the ACC Tournament title game two weeks later. #3 seed Maryland finally got over the hump and not only got past the Sweet 16, but made it all the way to the Final Four, (narrowly) beating #14 seed George Mason (83-80), #11 Georgia State (79-60), #10 seed Georgetown (76-66), and then taking down #1 seed Stanford in the Elite 8, 87-73. Duke would be favored over Maryland by 4.5 points.

Maryland jumped out to a quick lead, and then absolutely blitzed Duke, going up by 22 in the first 13 minutes of the game, 39-17. This was by far the most Duke had been down all season. Then for the second time that year, Duke pulled off another miracle against Maryland. Duke whittled away and cut the lead to 13 with 3 minutes left in the 1st half, despite little contribution from Jay Williams (who scored only 4 points in the first half). At 2 minutes left, the lead was 12. A Boozer dunk cut the lead to 10 and forced a Maryland timeout. A phantom foul on Lonnie Baxter led to 2 Chris Duhon free throws, and the lead was 8 with a 1:10 left in the 1st half. Another Maryland foul on a defensive rebound on Terence Morris put Carlos Boozer on the line, but he missed both free throws. Duke's Nate James got the rebound, but a steal gave Maryland the last possession, and Juan Dixon took advantage with a 3 to take the lead back to 11, 49-38 at the half, with Maryland leading for all but 50 seconds.

At the start of the 2nd half, Duke reclaimed the momentum, and two key 3's and two trips to the free throw line cut the Maryland lead to 4 a minute and a half into the 2nd session. It would take almost another 12 minutes for Duke to finally get over the hump and take the lead, as Maryland responded with counterpunches every time Duke seemed poised to take the lead. Three different times the lead was cut to one, only to see Maryland respond. A 3 by Juan Dixon took the lead back to 7 at the 10 and a half minute mark, and Maryland seemed to have regained its footing. Dixon then missed back to back good looks from 3 on the next possession at the 10 minute mark, and Battier responded with a 3 for Duke to cut the lead back to 4. Duke kept hanging around and hanging around, making free throws and forcing tough Maryland shots, and at 6:49, a 3 by Jason Williams finally gave Duke the lead. It went back and forth for the next two minutes, until 3 consecutive possessions of Duke free throws (the last of which put Maryland's Lonnie Baxter out of the game) put Duke up 6, a lead they hung onto the rest of the game. Final score, Duke 95, Maryland 84. Even Coach K could only say "wow" after this one.

No question about it, this would be one of those games where non-Duke fans could claim "Duke gets all the calls." In this case, it was somewhat credible. Duke would shoot 35 free throws this game (about 10 above their 25.7 average that year, which put them at 42nd in the nation), and a number of calls in this game were just bizarre, especially Lonnie Baxter's 4th and 5th fouls, the last of which happened with 2:48 left when Duke was up 5 and in the double bonus (in the national championship game, it was actually discussed repeatedly on the broadcast how much this theme had become a thing, and the fans in the Metrodome again had reason to complain Monday night when several times the officials neglected to call offensive fouls on Jason Williams when it would have either fouled him out or put him on the bench with a significant amount of time left in the game). Maryland had their chances, no question about it, but it's not hard to argue that the refs were a part of this game. Nonetheless, for the 3rd time in one season, Maryland would blow a double-digit second half lead to Duke and lose. They'd lead for all but 50 seconds in the first half, and for 14 minutes and 50 seconds in the 2nd. The 22 point deficit Duke erased would be then and remains today the largest comeback in Final Four history.

Arizona, who was led by Jason Gardner, Gilbert Arenas, Richard Jefferson and Loren Woods that year, was waiting in the wings, after having handily beat the defending champs, #1 seed Michigan State, 80-61 in the other Final Four game (though Arizona was actually favored by 1). In the national championship game, #2 seed Arizona came out in a zone defensively, and Duke had little answers for 7'1" Loren Woods early. Jay Williams picked up 2 fouls in the first four and a half minutes, sending the 1st team All-American to the bench early, and he almost picked up his 3rd foul with 9 minutes left in the 1st half, but the officials were generous and didn't call the incidental contact. The MVP of the first half was Carlos Boozer, who scored 7 points and guarded Loren Woods very well (including one huge block on him with 4 and a half minutes left in the half). Arizona would go 0-6 from 3 in the 1st half, but Jay Williams would go 1-7 from distance as well, which allowed Arizona to stay in the game despite being so cold. Duke had the halftime lead 35-33, but Arizona led the game for longer to that point (9:57 vs. 8:31 for Duke and 1:32 tied).

3 straight Mike Dunleavy 3's stretched the Duke lead to 10 four minutes into the second half, even though Arizona finally hit their first 3 of the game during this stretch as well. Duke was up 11 four and a half minutes into the half but then Richard Jefferson responded with his first 3 of the game, which ignited a 9-0 run for the Cats (though the run would end when Jefferson missed a huge layup to tie the game at the 13 and a half minute mark). Duke responded again, stretching the lead back out to 12, but Arizona would respond again too, cutting the lead to 3 twice in the last 5 minutes. The officials' generosity towards Jason Williams continued, deciding not to call a charge several times in the last five minutes that would have fouled him out of the game (this was particularly strange given the amount of "touch" fouls they called on bigs down low during this game, especially against Duke players). Arizona coach Lute Olson said after the game he thought Jason Williams "fouled out twice" in those closing minutes "with push offs." But regardless, every time Arizona cut the lead to one possession, Duke responded, first with an And-1 from Chris Duhon, and then with a follow up dunk by Battier. A Jason Williams 3 with a minute 45 to go--his first field goal of the second half--was the dagger, putting Duke up 8, and that was it. If Boozer was the MVP of the first half, Mike Dunleavy was the MVP of the 2nd, hitting 5 3's and leading Duke in scoring with 21 points (including 18 in the second half). Duke won, 82-72, giving Coach K his 3rd national championship (and Duke's second in the twin cities, where they won in 1992), capping off one of the most impressive seasons ever. Arizona was clearly the more athletic team that night, but Duke was the better team, and they were the better team all year.

So was this Duke team ultimately better than '23-24 UConn though? Before we recap, let's look at our table.

As impressive as UConn's regular season was this year, this Duke team dwarfs their accomplishments, and that's even before you look at any statistics. 10 wins against ranked opponents, and all of their losses were to top 16 ranked teams. And importantly, no one ever kicked their ass (their losses were by 1, 2, 2, and 11 points). If you include their two games against the Big East that they played during ACC conference play (Boston College and St. John's), Duke's average margin of victory outside the ACC was 25.2 points (UConn's was 23.2). That is simply incredible. In conference play, this number was still an incredible 18.25 (UConn's was 13.85). This is particularly notable considering the ACC's SRS score in 2000-01 was 16.47, which is the 6th highest score by any conference in any season in the modern era (three other times the ACC had a higher SRS score, including in 1994-95, 1996-97, 2003-04, and then the Big Ten had a higher score in 1988-89, as did the Big 12 in 2016-17). The Big East's SRS score in '23-24 was 12.82, which was 3rd in the country this year (behind the Big 12's 15.09 and the Big Ten's 12.98). Looking at the full schedule, Duke's average MOV of 20.21 was a full two points above UConn's 18.1, and against an extremely difficult schedule (Duke's 11.97 SOS rating that year was second highest all time amongst national championship winners, trailing only the '89 Michigan team's 12.06). This produces an incredible 32.18 SRS score for Duke, the second highest in the modern era behind their predecessors in '98-99. This is quite a bit higher than UConn's 26.7. So in sum, '00-01 Duke's regular season was definitely more impressive than UConn's.

Let's now turn to the NCAA tournament. Like '23-24 UConn, '00-01 Duke won all their NCAA tournament games by double-digits that year (including the Final Four and National Championship game), and they did it against statistically tougher NCAA tournament competition as well. Duke's average tournament opponent's SRS was 15.2 vs. UConn's 14.6, and their combined opponent SRS was 91.3 compared to UConn's of 87.5. Duke's average seed played, however, was actually slightly higher at 6.7 compared to UConn's at 6.3. Duke did play a #3 seed in the Final Four and a #1 seed in the Natty though, whereas UConn played a #4 seed in the Final Four and a #1 seed in the Natty.

Maryland, Duke's Final Four opponent had a solidly higher SRS score than Alabama (UConn's Final Four opponent), 23.89 versus Bama's 20.69. But this Maryland team came perilously close to losing in the first round, however, as they were losing to #14 seed George Mason with a minute to go before Steve Blake hit a huge 3 to keep them from being bounced from the NCAA tourney prematurely for the third straight year. It took a silly turnover by George Mason on the effective last possession of the game (when George Mason was only down 1) to seal the game for Maryland. This isn't to say Alabama this year was better than Maryland in '00-01, but rather to say that Maryland at that time was still the Maryland team that had a propensity to lose games that they shouldn't, and thus wasn't some juggernaut.

Arizona's (Duke's national championship opponent) 26.85 SRS rating also ranks decently above Purdue's 24.93, though not by a mile. This Arizona team too had its blemishes. They were ranked #1 pre-season that year, but had fallen all the way to 21st in the AP poll by January and had 8 total losses (7 before the tournament). They were good, but they weren't that good. They were, after all, a #2 seed. This Arizona team too had a (relatively) early scare in the NCAA tournament against Ole Miss in the Sweet 16, where Arizona trailed for much of the 1st half and were down as much as 12 after Ole Miss went on a 16-0 run. Arizona would cut the lead to 1 by halftime, and Arizona started to assert itself as the 2nd half went on, but Ole Miss cut the lead to 5 with 6 and a half minutes left, and to 4 with four minutes left. Ole Miss was very much in the game late. Purdue, on the other hand, really only had one close game against Tennessee in the Elite 8. Even their Final Four game was never really in doubt, though NC State was definitely a (historically) weak Final Four opponent.

But while Duke's competition may have been slightly better, UConn's dominance in the NCAA tourney distinguishes it from even this extraordinary Duke team. UConn's average margin of victory of 23.3 points is significantly higher than Duke's 16.7. UConn's advantage in the Final Four and National Championship games are not as pronounced (especially considering Duke was down 22 at one point to Maryland and still won by double digits), but neither of UConn's final two games were ever seriously in doubt. This is not true for Duke. Duke probably should have lost to Maryland, though the Arizona game felt like theirs almost the whole time. But that being said, Arizona cut it to 1 possession twice in the last 5 minutes of that game, so it wasn't like it wasn't within the realm of possibility that Duke could have lost that game too (this is even before you start talking about the non-calls on Jay Williams that would have fouled him out down the stretch). Even Duke's second round game against Missouri is just quite a bit different than UConn's. Missouri led for almost a quarter of their game against Duke, whereas Northwestern never led against UConn.

It's here where looking at "game control" probably helps supplement merely looking at win margins. As shown in the tables below, '23-24 UConn's game control statistics differ considerably (and favorably) from '00-01 Duke's. UConn never trailed in its first two games, trailed by 27 seconds against San Diego St. in the Sweet 16, and never trailed against Illinois in the Elite 8. Then in the Final Four, UConn would trail by 4 minutes and 17 seconds against Alabama, and in the National Championship game, they trailed by only 1 minute and 33 seconds. In total then, UConn trailed for only 6 minutes and 17 seconds the entire NCAA tournament. Said differently, UConn was winning for 90% of the minutes it played in the tournament, and trailed in only 4% of them. In 7% of them, it was tied.

Though we don't have the exact statistics for Duke (play-by-plays are not yet available for games that old), I've estimated them based on the game films that I linked to above. The same statistics for '00-01 Duke are as follows: Duke (appeared to) never trail against Monmouth, they trailed for 9 minutes against Missouri, they trailed for 2 minutes against UCLA, they trailed for about 4 and a quarter against USC, they trailed by over 35 minutes against Maryland in the Final Four, and they trailed Arizona in the national championship game for almost 10 minutes. That totals over a full game's worth (60 minutes) of trailing, compared to UConn's 6 minutes and 17 seconds. You can exclude almost any game you want, and the statistics just look radically different in terms of dominance for '23-24 UConn compared to the '00-01 Duke team.

The game control statistics tell you exactly the same thing the game films do when you watch them: UConn was never even close to as vulnerable as this Duke team was to losing, especially in the biggest games. To some, Duke being down 22 and coming back to win by 11 in the Final Four might make the case stronger for this Duke team, and so might Arizona making the national championship game a one possession game twice in the final 5 minutes. UConn's Final Four and National Championship opponents were definitely inferior to Duke's, but not by so much that it makes up for the meaningfully different chances of losing that Duke faced multiple times in the tournament compared to UConn. UConn's largest deficit in the Final Four was 5 (at 11:12 left in the 1st half, UConn was down 23-18), and their largest deficit in the national championship game was 2 (UConn was down 5-3 at 18:12 in the 1st half, and then again with 7:27 left in the first half they were down 23-21). Ultimately, despite inferior talent and a weaker regular season resume, '23-24 UConn distinguishes itself from this Duke team in terms of tournament dominance, and the separation here is probably enough to offset the '00-01 Duke team's better regular season. Even if Duke's stronger pre-tournament performance perfectly offset UConn's post season dominance, however, UConn should still get the edge over '00-01 Duke because it repeated as national champs. You can make really good arguments on both sides of this particular debate, but UConn should probably get the nod here.

1998-99 Maryland, Duke, and UConn

Last October, ESPN ranked the 1998-99 UConn team as the best team of the last 25 years. I only recently came across this article, but I was somewhat surprised by this. While there's an argument here for sure, I don't think it's particularly compelling. There's a decent argument to be made that UConn wasn't even the second best team that year. Both Duke and Maryland had higher average MOV's AND much higher SOS's, resulting in both having higher SRS ratings than '98-99 UConn (Maryland's 26.13 and Duke's incredible 34.79 both exceeded UConn's 24.73). Let's start with Maryland.

That Maryland team was a fun one, with high-flying Steve Francis (Junior), Terence Morris (a Sophomore), Laron Profit (Senior), and freshmen Juan Dixon and Lonny Baxter. I loved this team as a kid. Six guys from that team would play in the NBA. Maryland's 28-6 record (26-5 in the regular season and 13-3 in the ACC) looks like something to pick at, but people should remember that the mid and late 90's was peak ACC, and even then, Maryland's losses weren't terrible: a 103-91 loss to #5 Kentucky at Rupp in December, a 82-64 loss at home to #2 Duke on January 3rd to open the ACC slate (which probably portended things to come for that Duke team), a 72-85 loss to Wake Forest (unranked) on the road on 1/31, another drubbing by #2 Duke at Cameron on 2/3 (95-77), and then a loss to #15 ranked North Carolina in the ACC tournament. Maryland had won most of their other ACC games comfortably. They had never been lower than #7 in the AP poll (after starting at #6 pre-season), got as high as #2 in November, and ultimately finished the year at #5.

While this earned them a #2 seed in the South that year in the NCAA tourney, their Sweet 16 loss to #9 seed St. John's (led by Ron Artest, otherwise known as Metta World Peace) by 14 was a surprise (even though St. John's forced Duke to OT at Madison Square Garden earlier that season), both in terms of seeding, as well as how Maryland played. But the loss was probably not a shocker. Maryland had been down as many as 23 points to North Carolina in the ACC Tournament semi-finals just weeks earlier, after sweeping the season series somewhat comfortably. This was yet another Sweet 16 loss for a Maryland team that had been there 5 times since 1975 without advancing.

Steve Francis would leave for the NBA Draft after that season and get picked at #2 overall, behind only national player of the year Elton Brand. Maryland would lose in the second round of the NCAA tourney in '99-00 to UCLA, but would finally break through the Sweet 16 glass ceiling and advance all the way to the Final Four in 2001. They then took two steps further the next year and won the whole deal in 2002. But despite the episodes of dominance and flash throughout this season, the number of losses, and more importantly the conference and NCAA tournament performances, ultimately do make it fairly easy to put the '98-99 Maryland team not only behind '98-99 UConn that year, but also the '98-99 Duke team, who pounded them twice and advanced much farther in the NCAA tournament.

Which brings us to '98-99 Duke. This team is the strongest candidate to make the argument of best team in the modern era that did not win it all. Duke was absolutely loaded with talent that year, and had 4 NBA Draft lottery picks on its team this season: Sophomore center Elton Brand, who would be drafted overall #1, senior guard Trajan Langdon, who went #11, freshman guard Corey Maggette, who went #13, and sophomore guard William Avery, who went #14.

As impressive as Duke's roster was that season though, their resume was even more outrageous. They were 37-1 coming into the National Championship game, with its only loss to that point coming against #15 Cincinnati in Alaska on November 28th (75-77). Duke subsequently ran through both the ACC and the ACC Tournament, winning every game by double-digits except one. Duke's strength-of-schedule this season was also remarkable, making both parts of its 32.14 SRS ranking incredibly strong (24.67 MOV and 10.12 SOS respectively). Once it got to the NCAA tournament, Duke won its first four NCAA tournament games by an average of 30 points (40, 41, 17, and 21), and then somewhat amazingly, facing #1 seed Michigan St. in the Final Four (a team which included Mateen Cleaves, Morris Peterson and Charlie Bell), they were favored by an incredible 11.5 points, the most a #1 seed has ever been an underdog in any men's NCAA tourney game. Duke would go on to win that game 68-62 and advance to the title game against UConn.

Watching that game (undoubtedly one of the greatest national championship games ever), it's remarkable how many times Jim Nance and Billy Packer talk about how Duke winning the title that year was perceived to be a foregone conclusion, and similar to Brian Dutcher's comment about the '23-24 tourney being the "UConn Invitational," Nance said exactly the same thing about Duke during that final game telecast. UConn up to the Final Four this year, including the 11.5 points they were favored over Alabama, had been favored by a combined 74 points. The '98-99 Duke team over a similar period had been favored by 124, though it's competition was definitely weaker until MSU. Despite then being favored by 9.5 against UConn in the title game, the '98-99 UConn team (who was also a #1 seed and who had a 24.73 SRS rating that year) shocked Duke in the final in the largest national championship game upset outside of Villanova's 1985 upset of Georgetown (the latter of who was a 10 point favorite that year).

But is the '98-99 team actually better than the UConn team they lost to? Let's compare the two side-by-side first.

One thing worth mentioning from this year too was that the ACC's SRS and SOS were meaningfully better than the Big East's in '98-99. The ACC's SRS was 14.78 that year while the Big East's was 10.86, and the SOS in the ACC was 9.04 compared to the Big East's 7.92. This is reflected in each team's SRS of course, but it's still worth highlighting. This makes Duke's 32-1 pre-tournament campaign look more impressive than UConn's 28-2, though both were extremely impressive. This '98-99 UConn team was the real deal though. UConn didn't lose until February that year, and that run included wins over #15 Washington at the United Center (69-48), #9 Michigan State (at home) 82-68, and #20 Pitt on the road, 70-69. But this was overshadowed by what Duke was doing, who after losing to #15 Cincinnati in Alaska by 2 on 11/28, rattled off 32 wins in a row, including neutral site wins against #9 Michigan State (effectively a road game given it was at the United Center in Chicago), 73-67, and #3 Kentucky at the Meadowlands in Jersey, 71-60.

Based on this, there's really only two arguments for '98-99 UConn over Duke, since both also won their regular season conference titles and their conference tourneys : 1) UConn beat Duke, and 2) they were #1 in the AP poll for more weeks during the regular season.

Argument #1 is a powerful one, and ultimately probably is the trump card. But in almost every other statistical category, Duke looks far superior. It seems clear that if they played again, Duke would again be favored (though probably not by 9.5). If they played a 3, 5, or 7 game series, I'm taking Duke. That series would probably go the distance, but I suspect Duke would prevail.

Duke and UConn were the two best teams in '98-99, and we were fortunate we got to see them play in the national title game. Whether Duke or UConn was better in '98-99, however, thankfully isn't of paramount significance, because neither of them are better than '23-24 UConn. Let's now put the three up side-by-side-by-side.

Let's first take '98-99 Duke vs. '23-24 UConn before we compare UConn to UConn. Let's first ignore the fact that UConn won the whole deal in '23-24 and Duke did not (not to mention the back-to-back factor for '23-24 UConn). You can make a pretty compelling argument that Duke had a much stronger regular season than '23-24 UConn. Statistically, this Duke team is just incredible in this regard. However, the same case can be made with '23-24 UConn with respect to the post-season, which ultimately is more important. UConn's tournament competition in '23-24 was much stronger than Duke's in '98-99. UConn's opponents SRS ratings averaged 14.6 vs. Duke's at 10.3, and UConn's average seed played was 6.3 compared to Duke's 7.5. Even with this stronger competition, UConn's margin of victory in the tournament was still better (23.3 vs. 20.3). So even leaving out the fact that '23-24 UConn won and Duke didn't, and that UConn repeated, UConn appears to be the better team, as it crushed better competition when it mattered most by a bigger margin.

This then brings us to '98-99 UConn vs. '23-24 UConn. Here the argument is simpler. '98-99 UConn had the three strong non-conference wins noted above (over Washington, Michigan St. and Pitt), they didn't lose until February, and they were #1 in the rankings for longer than '23-24 UConn (10 weeks at #1 vs. 7 for '23-24 UConn). Despite having one fewer loss than the '23-24 team, however, their average MOV was almost identical (17.10 for '98-99 versus 17.16 for '23-24 UConn). Strength of Schedule is also basically the same. '23-24 UConn's regular season non-conference wins are probably better though: an 81-71 win over #15 ranked Texas at Madison Square Garden, an 87-76 win against #9 North Carolina at MSG a few weeks later, and then a 76-63 win over #10 ranked Gonzaga in a de facto road game in Seattle. It's also worth highlighting that UConn's only pre-conference loss was to #5 Kansas at Allen Fieldhouse, where they lost a close game 65-69 and where almost no one wins. The deciding factor here might be the Big East's conference strength in each year: in '23-24, the Big East had a 12.82 SRS and a 9.58 Strength of Schedule, 3rd and 1st in the nation respectively. As noted above, in 1998-99, the Big East had an SRS of 10.86 (5th in the nation) and an SOS of 7.92 (4th in the nation). So at best here, the regular season is a toss-up between these two UConn teams. But ultimately, '23-24 UConn's better non-conference wins and a much stronger Big East conference probably give it a narrow edge (though this is of course factored into UConn's own MOV and SOS statistics).

Assuming the regular season is still a toss-up though, the post-season is where the '23-24 team meaningfully separates itself from the '98-99 squad, as has been the case with many of the other teams we've compared last year's UConn team to. As our table above shows, the competition UConn faced in the '23-24 tourney was probably slightly tougher than the '98-99 team. Their opponents average SRS was 14.1 in '98-99 vs. 14.6 in '23-24, and the combined SRS was 84.3 versus 87.5 in '23-24. '98-99 UConn's average seed played was 7.5 versus '23-24 UConn's at 6.3, so the '23-24 team was tougher in that regard too. The decisive factor is probably this: the '23-24 team literally beat their competition by twice as much as the '98-99 team did. '98-99 UConn won its last four NCAA tourney games by 10, 5, 6, and 3. '23-24 UConn won theirs by 30, 25, 14, and 15. The '98-99 team may have the best win of all time in that national title game over Duke, but that's not enough to offset the insane dominance of the '23-24 team throughout the tournament, including the Final Four and national championship game. Last year's UConn team's NCAA tournament performance puts it ahead of '98-99 UConn in terms of best-team-of-the-modern-era-status, despite the fact that the shockwaves UConn sent around the world that night in 1999 still reverberate today.

1995-96 Kentucky Wildcats

If there's another team besides '00-01 Duke that poses stiff competition for this year's UConn team, it's the '95-96 Kentucky team. Consider the below comparison:

Kentucky started the season as #1, spent 5 total weeks there, ended the season at #2 (behind John Calipari's UMass team, led by Marcus Camby). They never went below #5. 9 players on this team would eventually play in the NBA, including Double Zero Tony Delk (the NCAA tournament's most outstanding player that year), Mark Pope (who is now the new Kentucky coach), Walter McCarty (an absolute beast who had a great 3 point shot too at 6'10"), Ron Mercer, and Antoine Walker, who was the SEC Tournament MVP as a freshmen the year before.

After taking down #14 ranked Maryland in their opening game after a slow start (they were down by 9 early), Kentucky would actually play #5 ranked UMass in the second game of the year at the Palace of Auburn Hills on November 28th, 1995. UMass would win this game 92-82 after Kentucky again got off to a slow start and Mark Pope got into foul trouble early (they were down 16 in the first 8 minutes of the game and as much as 19 at the 10 minute mark). Offensively this was as sloppy as we'd see this Kentucky team, who just looked out of sorts, and their limited scoring in turn limited their ability to apply Rick Pitino's famous full court press effectively. Kentucky would eventually settle in defensively and get hot from 3 (going 6-7) to storm back and tie the game at halftime, 45-45. A 10-0 run by UMass to start the second half put Kentucky in a hole again, but they again climbed their way out. Except they could never get over the hump, and would never lead in this game. The 10 point margin of victory for UMass overstates how close this game was in the final minutes, but nonetheless, UMass would prevail. This would be the third straight season Calipari's UMass teams would beat the #1 ranked team in the nation.

After losing to UMass, Kentucky proceeded to win 27 games in a row, which was more than enough to win the SEC regular season title. At several points during this stretch, Kentucky racked up some of the most impressive offensive performances of any team we've looked at. For instance, they scored 118 points against Marshall (to win 118-99), a team that would ultimately go 17-11 that season under coach Billy Donovan. They then put up 106 points against Iona to win by 27, a team that that would go 21-8 that year and win the MAAC (Mid-Atlantic Athletic Conference). Arguably most impressive during the regular season were Kentucky's wins over LSU and TCU, where they scored 129 points and 124 points respectively (to win by 32 and 44). LSU wasn't particularly good that year (going 12-17 and 4-12 in the SEC), and Kentucky had put 127 on LSU the previous year at Rupp Arena. But in this year's game, Kentucky scored an incredible 86 points against LSU in the 1st half of this game alone. I don't care if you're playing a high school team: that is simply insane for a college basketball team playing a power conference opponent (in case you're wondering, the NCAA record for points in a half is actually 97, by Oklahoma in 1989). Rick Pitino's patented full court press defense absolutely swarmed and overwhelmed LSU, forcing 8 turnovers in the first 4 minutes of the game. TCU was slightly better at 15-15 (though only going 6-8 in the old Southwest Conference), but the score in this game too is still hard to fathom. Kentucky would also play #16 ranked Georgia Tech and #25 ranked Louisville in the non-conference schedule as well, games they both won convincingly by 23. Kentucky had a very strong SOS that year at 10.14, though the SEC itself was not particularly impressive that season.

In the first two rounds of the SEC Conference Tournament, Kentucky continued to roll, winning by 24 against Florida and by 20 against Arkansas. Kentucky would then be upset in the final, however, by #25 ranked Mississippi St., a team they beat by 18 on the road earlier that season. This was their second and final loss of the season.

Coming into the NCAA tournament, Kentucky had the 3rd lowest odds of any team to win the tournament ever: +140 (in case you're wondering, the team most heavily favored coming into the tourney was UNLV in 1991 at -167, who would ultimately lose to Duke in the Final Four, followed by the 2014-15 Kentucky team at +110, who would lose to Wisconsin in the Final Four). For perspective, the awesome 1998-99 Duke team would be +160 coming into the tournament (they ultimately lost in the NC game to UConn, as mentioned above), and the 2001 Duke team would be +250 (who won the NC).

As a #1 seed, Kentucky would steamroll their competition in the first four rounds of the NCAA tourney, winning by 38, 24, 31, and 20, respectively, though clips from this video and this one suggest San Jose St. gave Kentucky everything it could handle in the first half of their first round game (Kentucky would still lead by 6 at the half and never trail in the 2nd half, ultimately winning by 38). Sadly we don't have many play-by-plays for games before 2005, and there also aren't any game films (or at least not any on the internet) of Kentucky's first two tournament games in 1996 either. This makes it difficult to evaluate game control for this Kentucky team in the tournament. We do know that they never trailed in the 2nd half of any NCAA tournament game that year (this is highlighted in a graphic at the start of the 2nd half of the national championship game against Syracuse). We do have full films for Kentucky's Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games against #4 seed Utah (led by Keith Van Horn and freshmen Andre Miller) and #2 seed Wake Forest (led by Tim Duncan), and can be found here and here. Kentucky obliterated both teams (both of whom were good), and never trailed in either game.

In the Final Four (the last one played in a basketball arena, and also the last one in the New York area as well), Kentucky would get another shot at UMass, who had beaten them earlier in the season, and Kentucky would be favored by 7.5 points in the rematch. Recall UMass finished the year ranked #1 in the polls, where they were for all but 2 of the last 12 weeks of the season. UMass had defeated #16 seed University of Central Florida in Round 1 (92-70), #9 seed Stanford in Round 2 (79-74), #12 seed Arkansas in the Sweet 16 (79-63), and then demolished #2 seed Georgetown and Allen Iverson in the Elite 8, 86-62 to reach the Final Four themselves.

In the first half, UMass kept Kentucky at bay and again generated an early lead, but Kentucky eventually earned an 8 point lead at halftime on the back of turning turnovers into points and limiting Marcus Camby through double teams (a staple of Kentucky's defense, along with the full court press). Kentucky would extend this lead to 15 in the opening minutes of the 2nd half, again on the back of their ferocious trap and press defense. Massachusetts settled down and cut the lead back to 6, but then missed several makeable shots to whittle the lead down further, and a 3 by Delk, a runaway jam and another dunk by Antoine Walker quickly took the lead back to 13 with 11 minutes left. UMass took few 3's this year (their 12.4 a game put them 285th in the country), and Kentucky's constant doubling of bigs down low made it tough on UMass to get back in the game. Compared to the first game in Detroit, this time Kentucky was far less sloppy on offense. Kentucky also had multiple 3 point threats with Delk, Mercer, Epps, Anderson, and McCarty, whereas Carmelo Travieso was really the only guy who could shoot from 3 for UMass.

But despite all that, UMass got back in the game again. UMass would dig deep and a monster 3 point play by Marcus Camby with just over 6 minutes left (on a somewhat phantom foul by Mark Pope) cut the lead back to 5. A Kentucky turnover followed by a tip in by Donta Bright made it 3 at the 5 minute mark. In a microcosm of the game, however, a Kentucky fast break led to two free throws by Pope, a block on Marcus Camby followed by a successful press break, and a subsequent Camby turnover quickly pushed the lead for Kentucky back to 8 with 3 minutes to go. UMass made one last push, capped off by a 3 by Edgar Padilla to cut the lead back to 3 with a minute left, but two more huge free throws by Pope and two runouts by Kentucky turned the last 40 seconds into fouls and free throws. Kentucky survived and advanced, 81-74. Kentucky was the better team, but the grit from UMass in this game was extremely impressive. UMass seemed to be a uniquely challenging matchup for this Kentucky team, despite its inability to really utilize the 3. Camby would finish with 25 points, 8 boards and 6 blocks.

Syracuse would defeat Mississippi St. in the other Final Four game, the team that gave Kentucky it's other loss this year. Kentucky would be favored by a whopping 14 points against Syracuse in the Final. Jim Boeheim's patented 2-3 zone slowed Kentucky down early in this game, however, and as it always does, forced a lot of 3's and plenty of awkward range 2's, most of which Kentucky missed. Kentucky also had trouble finishing around the rim, at least partly due to the size combination of John Wallace (who had a remarkable game with 29 points) and Otis Hill. Kentucky actually shot better from 3 than they did from 2 in this game (44% from 3, 35% from 2). Tony Delk hit six 3's in the first half for Kentucky alone, and 7 in the game total (he went 7-12), tying Steve Alford's national championship game record from Indiana's win over Syracuse in 1987. Kentucky's defense was the difference in this game though. Syracuse had 5 turnovers total in their Final Four game against Mississippi St (and two of those were in the last minute of the game). By contrast, Kentucky forced 6 Syracuse turnovers in the first 8 minutes of the game alone, 13 in the first half, and 24 in total (Kentucky themselves had 15 in the game).

The first half went back and forth, with several lead changes until a 14-5 run broke a 28-28 tie to give Kentucky a 42-33 lead at the half. A leak in the roof thankfully didn't stop the game, and Kentucky opened the second half by extending their lead. The second half too went back and forth, with Syracuse responding every time Kentucky went on one of their patented runs. Kentucky just couldn't deliver the knockout punch and send Syracuse to the mat, but every time Syracuse did counterpunch, Kentucky too would respond. Syracuse started breaking the Kentucky press by throwing home run balls, and cut the lead back to 2 at the 14.5 minute mark, but 6 straight turnovers led to Kentucky again stretching the lead out to 13, the largest lead of the game at the 11 minute mark (59-46). Abysmal shooting (especially around the basket) by Kentucky in the 2nd half allowed Syracuse to hang around, and the Orange cut the lead back down to 2 again on the back of two John Wallace free throws with 4:45 left. A huge tip in by Walter McCarty immediately after that took the lead back to 4 again, followed by a Derek Anderson 3. This last run proved to be too much, and despite Syracuse making this a one possession game several times in the second half, they could never get over the hump. Kentucky would prevail, 76-67, giving them their first title since 1978. Though Syracuse cut the Kentucky lead to 2 twice in the second half, they were never able to tie the game, and just like all their other NCAA tournament games, Kentucky never trailed in the 2nd half of this game either.

So was this Kentucky team better than '23-24 UConn? Let's review.

• In addition to actually watching this team play, Kentucky's statistics are probably its biggest selling point. It had meaningfully better MOV, SOS, and consequently, SRS scores, than '23-24 UConn: 22.00, 10.14, and 32.14, respectively, compared to UConn's 18.1, 8.6, and 26.7 respectively. This was also despite Kentucky playing in a statistically weaker SEC conference that year compared to '23-24 UConn's Big East. Only 2 teams in the modern era had higher SRS ratings than the '95-96 Kentucky team: Duke in '00-01 (32.18), and Duke in '98-99 (34.79). '95-96 Kentucky also had similar MOV's against similar competition to UConn in the NCAA tourney, though UConn's were slightly better.

• Despite UConn spending more weeks at #1 than '95-96 Kentucky (7 versus 5), Kentucky's regular season is probably better.

  • First, let's look at each team's losses. UConn lost by 4 at #5 ranked Kansas, 69-65, which is no real insult. Almost no one wins at Allen Fieldhouse. That being said, their second and third losses can each be considered "bad losses." They basically got their ass kicked in both games. First, despite Donovan Clingan rolling his ankle and the game being on the road, UConn lost by 15 in their Big East opener to Seton Hall, a team who didn't even make the NCAA tournament (but who did win the NIT). Second, their loss by 19 to #15 ranked Creighton (also on the road, and who ultimately made the Sweet 16) was even more of a beatdown. These compare to Kentucky's 10 point loss to #5 ranked UMass on a neutral floor in the second game of the year (a game that was much closer than the final score indicated, as noted above). UMass would not only end the year ranked #1 in the country (they would spend 10 of the last 12 weeks of the season at #1), but they would ultimately also make it to the Final Four. Then Kentucky lost by 11 to #25 Mississippi St. in the SEC tourney, who Kentucky had previously beaten by 18 on the road on January 9th. Mississippi St. too made it to the Final Four, however. So to emphasize the point, '95-96 Kentucky only lost two games that year, and both to teams that would make it to the Final Four. That is a huge selling point for Kentucky.

  • On the wins side of the ledger, '23-24 UConn's regular season wins are probably slightly better, but for all intents and purposes, this is probably a tie. UConn's wins include a 10 point win over #15 Texas, an 11 point win over #9 North Carolina, and a 13 point win over #10 Gonzaga. This compares to '95-96 Kentucky's 12 point win over #14 ranked Maryland, a 23 point win over #16 Maryland, and a 23 point win over #25 ranked Louisville. UConn also had 3 wins over ranked opponents in conference as well, including a 28 point win over Marquette on February 17th (this was before Tyler Kolek got hurt too). This compares to Kentucky who only had 1 (against #12 Mississippi St., but by 18). Kentucky's insanely dominant wins over teams like LSU and Marshall, however, are special. Just go watch them for yourself. While they may entirely make up for the quality of wins UConn had this year, they're worth something in this argument. Some of the runs Kentucky went on in these games (this graphic is courtesy of a video clip below of the San Jose St. game in the NCAA tourney) are equally incredible as well.
    

• Bottom line, UConn probably gets a slight edge in wins, but Kentucky's losses are meaningfully better than UConn's (again, both of Kentucky's losses were to teams that ultimately made the Final Four), so netting the one against the other, Kentucky gets the nod here despite not winning their conference tournament.

• Now let's look at NCAA tournament performance. As a reminder, we unfortunately don't have either play-by-plays or complete game films for Kentucky's first two NCAA tournament games against San Jose St. and Virginia Tech. Though I did find significant chunks of each game, I consequently wasn't able to (accurately) manually calculate Kentucky's game control statistics for the entire NCAA tournament the way I could for these other teams. Here's what we can say, however:

  • First, Kentucky had a very competitive first half against San Jose St. in the first round, despite Kentucky still having a lead of 6 at the break, and ultimately winning by 38 (110-72). This would be the 8th time Kentucky scored over 100 points this season. In contrast, Stetson never led in the game against UConn this year and that game was never really close, with UConn winning by 39. As best I can tell, San Jose St. led for at least 2 minutes of this game (their largest lead appears to have been 4), and possibly significantly more (there's a significant gap in the video clip here unfortunately). This game was never really in doubt, but there's no debating that it was much more competitive (at least in the first half) than expected given the 33 point game spread and San Jose St.'s 13-16 record to that point.

  • In the second round, newspaper articles of the Virginia Tech game and this clip of second round coverage indicate Kentucky trailed for no more than 2 minutes in this game, with Virginia Tech's last lead coming at 7-6 at the 18:06 mark and ultimately led by 7 at the half and won by 24. UConn again never trailed against Northwestern in its second round game and won by 17. While both teams ultimately blew out each of its first two round opponents, UConn gets the edge thus far in terms of dominance.

  • In the Sweet 16, Kentucky played a 4 seed and won by 31, and UConn played a 5 seed and won by 30. In the Elite 8, Kentucky played a 2 seed and won by 20, and UConn played a 3 seed and won by 25. Neither team ever trailed in either game. I consider these a draw. They both obliterated their opponents here.

  • Then in the Final Four and National Championship, UConn again gets the edge. It won its games by 14 and 15 versus Kentucky winning by 7 and 9, and the SRS ratings of UConn's opponents were 20.69 (Alabama) and 24.93 (Purdue) versus Kentucky's 21.38 (UMass) and 18.99 (Syracuse). Even cutting Kentucky some slack for having to deal with Syracuse's unique 2-3 zone, UConn won its Final Four and National Championship games more convincingly than Kentucky did, and did so against statistically better competition. Game control stats also back this up: Kentucky trailed for about 5 minutes in both its Final Four and National Championship games. UConn trailed for 4 minutes and 27 seconds against Alabama, but only 1 minute and 33 seconds against Purdue, so a combined 10 minutes for Kentucky, but about 6 for UConn, as we've noted several times now. Each of these stats is pretty insane, to be clear, but there is a difference. Lastly, both UMass and Syracuse were within a stone's throw of pulling off the upset late in each game against Kentucky. That was not true for UConn. Alabama had a heck of a shot of beating UConn until about 12 minutes left, but then UConn pulled away. Purdue played with UConn early, but UConn quickly asserted itself in the 2nd half and pulled away to win that game comfortably too. Given Alabama's propensity to score, that Final Four game never felt quite as comfortable for UConn as the score indicated, but the Purdue game definitely did.
    

• Putting all this together, here's how the two teams' NCAA tournament statistics stack up:
  

  

• All told, Kentucky was a very (and historically) dominant NCAA tournament team. But despite that, this year's UConn team was actually more dominant in the tournament, though certainly not by a mile. Even if everything else was equal in these two teams' respective NCAA tournament performance (which its not), however, considering '23-24 UConn was trying to repeat, this serves as an additional feather in their cap to give them the nod.

• So the question then becomes, is UConn's NCAA tournament dominance so much better that it outweighs Kentucky's advantage in the regular season? The answer here is probably no. While it's true that UConn was more dominant in the NCAA tournament, Kentucky's dominance was still incredible. Despite having a couple closer games, they ultimately never trailed in the 2nd half of any of their NCAA tournament games. Even UConn didn't achieve that feat. Additionally, UConn was more dominant in the NCAA tournament, but as the table above shows, these two teams were pretty close in this regard. Kentucky's significantly superior regular season statistics (both in terms of margin of victory and strength of schedule, and consequently, the significantly higher SRS rating of 32.14 to UConn's 26.70), combined with losses only to teams that made the Final Four, is just incredibly impressive. Even when Kentucky did lose, it never got its ass kicked, and UConn did twice. Even incorporating UConn's "extra credit" for repeating, just watching this old Kentucky team I think adds additional credence to the notion that they were (slightly) better than '23-24 UConn. UConn was a methodical machine, but Kentucky was an explosive machine, and their overwhelming dominance on both sides of the ball hasn't been seen since. In case it's not clear by now, you can make incredibly strong arguments for each of these teams, and it might be better to consider them 1A and 1B rather than #1 and #2, but regardless, I give the '95-96 Kentucky team a slight edge over '23-24 UConn as the best team in the modern era.

The 1990-91 and 1991-92 Duke Teams

The 1990-91 and 1991-92 Duke teams that went back-to-back are widely remembered as two of the greatest ever, and they are. But I'm not quite sure they're better than either the '23-24 UConn team, the '00-01 Duke team, or the '95-96 Kentucky team. Let's take them one at a time.

On the '90-91 Team:

• A 32-7 team led by Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley, and Grant Hill that probably had the second greatest NCAA tournament win ever (behind '99 UConn's national title win over Duke) when they shocked the world and beat the UNLV machine, 79-77, in the Final Four to end UNLV's 45 game win streak. Additionally, they probably faced the toughest competition in the tournament, cumulatively, ever.

• Key wins: at #11 Oklahoma (90-85), #24 Georgia Tech (98-57), #5 North Carolina (74-60), at #23 Georgia Tech (77-75), #11 Virginia (86-74), #19 LSU (88-70), at #4 North Carolina (83-77)

• Losses: #2 Arkansas on 11/21 (98-88), #6 Georgetown on 12/5 (74-79), at #18 Virginia to open ACC play on 1/5 (64-81), at unranked NC State on 1/23 (89-95), at unranked Wake Forest on 2/16 (77-86), at #9 Arizona on 2/24 (96-103 in double OT), #7 North Carolina in the ACC semi-finals (74-96)

  • NC State went 20-11 that year and 8-6 in the ACC (good for 4th), and as a #6 seed would lose to #3 seed Oklahoma St. in Round 2 of the NCAA tournament. Wake Forest went 19-11 and also went 8-6 in the ACC (giving them 3rd). Wake also lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament as a #5 seed, in this case to to #4 seed Alabama. Neither of these losses can probably be considered "bad" losses for Duke.

• SRS score of 24.92 based on a MOV of 14.28 and a SOS of 10.64. Notably though, while not particularly low, this 24.92 SRS was 4th that season, behind UNLV at 31.12 (who Duke beat in the Final Four), Arkansas at 27.28 (who Duke lost to in the regular season), and North Carolina at 26.90 (who Duke beat twice and lost to once)

• Ultimately, Duke's resume this year is very, very solid. Seven high quality wins, including 2 over North Carolina, no bad losses, a regular season ACC title in a very difficult year, and a national championship. But all that said, its very plausible Duke might have been the 3rd or even the 4th best team this year (though it's pretty hard to argue they were worse than Carolina, despite the beatdown Carolina laid on them in the ACC title game). This Duke team just played the best when it mattered the most. No doubt about it, this absolutely counts for a lot, but it doesn't make up for some fairly clear signals that this team wasn't the modern GOAT: 7 regular season losses, #5 as the highest ranking in the AP poll (and #14 at the lowest), a #2 seed in the NCAA tourney, no conference tourney championship, etc. Their MOV's in the tournament also don't come anywhere close to either '23-24 UConn's or '95-96 Kentucky's either (though stronger competition ought to be kept in mind here). The '90-91 Duke team had one of the best NCAA tournaments ever, and arguably the best win in the NCAA tourney ever, but these by themselves doesn't make them the best.

On the '91-92 team:

• A 34-2 team that spent every single week at #1 in the AP poll that year brought back the core group from '90-91, but added 6'11" Cherokee Parks to the mix as well. Including Brian Davis and Antonio Lang, 6 players on this roster would go on to play in the NBA.

• Key Wins: #7 St. John's (91-81 at Greensboro Coliseum, so effectively a home game), at #18 (Fab Five) Michigan (88-85 in OT), #14 Georgia Tech (97-84), #18 Charlotte (104-82), at #23 Florida State (75-62), at #22 LSU (77-67), at #4 UCLA (75-65), #16 North Carolina (89-77), and finally #20 North Carolina (94-74) in the final of the ACC tournament.

• Losses: at #9 North Carolina on 2/5 (73-75), at unranked Wake Forest on 2/23 (68-72).

  • Carolina generally had a down year this year, going 23-10 and 9-7 in ACC play, and would lose to #1 seed Ohio State as a #4 seed in the Sweet 16 this year. Wake Forest went 17-12 (including 7-9 in ACC play), and made it into the tournament as a #9 seed, but lost to Louisville 81-58 in the first round.

• In summary, 8 wins against top 25 competition, only 2 losses, a regular season ACC crown, an ACC Tournament title, and a national title? Incredibly impressive, no question about it. But while I'm clearly being critical here (we are comparing great teams, after all), there's several pretty credible "cons" for this '91-92 Duke team that ultimately knocks them down the modern GOAT list:

  • First, their SRS score of 24.71 is again somewhat underwhelming compared to other teams we've looked at (it's even below the '90-91 Duke team's). It's certainly not bad, but it ranks 19th amongst the teams we're considering (the previous year's team ranks 14th of all of them)

  • The (bad) Wake Forest loss

  • The NCAA tournament competition looks formidable, but it's somewhat skewed by Indiana's awesome 30.05 SRS score (2nd highest behind '90-91 UNLV among teams to never win it all). You could perhaps call this a draw given they played a statistically weak Fab Five Michigan team in the National Championship game (who had a 18.79 SRS score and was a #6 seed), but Duke deserves major credit for their win over Indiana, which is statistically the third best win in NCAA tournament history (behind '99 UConn's win over Duke and Duke's '91 win over UNLV).

  • Most importantly though, Duke probably shouldn't have even been in this Final Four. The famous Christian Laettner shot against Kentucky in the Elite 8 was extremely fortunate, to say the least, and a contested fade away long range 2 probably goes in 2 in 10 times at best. It's hard to argue a team that barely made the Final Four on a very fortunate shot, and therefore should have lost, is the greatest in the modern era.

  • Lastly, while they dominated Michigan in the national championship game, their dominance even excluding the Indiana game was not particularly impressive, especially relative to '23-24 UConn or '95-96 Kentucky.

• All told, the '91-92 Duke team was probably better than the year before, and they're on the short list for greatest teams in the modern era, but they're not the greatest team in the modern era.

Other Teams that Didn't Win it All

What about other teams that didn't win it all? We've already talked about '98-99 Duke and '04-05 Illinois. Is it possible any other non-national champion teams are actually better than the '23-24 UConn team, or the '00-01 Duke or '95-96 Kentucky team? The short answer is no, but there's definitely some considerations here:

• 2020-21 Gonzaga: they went undefeated, but a last second shot against #11 seed UCLA in the Final Four by Jalen Suggs and getting pummeled by Baylor in the national championship game in their best chance to win it all in program history excludes this team, despite being statistically attractive
  

• 2014-15 Kentucky: also undefeated at 38-0 until they lost to Wisconsin in the national title game. Their SRS score of 28.72 was the highest since Duke '00-01's 32.18. Often forgotten about this team is that Kentucky actually barely made the Final Four, barely surviving against ACC tournament champion and #3 seed Notre Dame, who led for most of that game (48% of the first half, and 64% of the 2nd half, including from 14:57 until 1:14 left in the game when Karl Anthony-Towns made a layup to tie the game 66-66). It took two free throws by Andrew Harrison with 6 seconds left and a missed three pointer at the buzzer by Jerami Grant for undefeated Kentucky to survive and advance to the Final Four. This major close call followed by a loss to Wisconsin the next game in the Final Four in another classic knocks this team from contention as the GOAT. Kentucky's dominance even prior to the Notre Dame game wasn't particularly impressive (though the 39 point win over West Virginia was).
  

• 1992-93 Kentucky: Even though Kentucky didn't even have the highest SRS rating this year (it was second to national champion North Carolina with 29.04), their dominance in the NCAA tournament warrants this team to be considered. To get to the Final Four, Kentucky won its games by 44, 21, 34, and 25 points against a 16, 8, 5, and 3 seed. A strong MOV and SOS, as well as a dominant tournament performance, however, are not enough to offset a loss in the Final Four to a Fab Five team that had been playing very shaky both coming into and during that year's tournament. Even more notable is that Michigan and the Fab Five generally controlled that game, and probably should have won it in regulation and more comfortably than they did. The fact that Michigan subsequently lost to North Carolina in the national championship in the infamous Chris Webber timeout game doesn't help this Kentucky team's case either.
  

• 1991-92 Indiana Hoosiers: this Indiana team, led by Calbert Cheaney and Greg Graham, had five high school All Americans on their roster, and four future NBA players. It's statistically one of the most impressive teams ever, with their 30.05 SRS score the 5th highest in the modern era (only 1990-91 UNLV, 1995-96 Kentucky, 1998-99 Duke, and 2000-01 Duke surpassed this). Both elements of their SRS are impressive: 17.62 MOV and a 12.43 SOS, the latter of which is statistically the most difficult schedule of any team we've looked at by far. This Indiana team was ranked pre-season #2, behind defending national champion Duke, and they'd finish at #2 as well, never getting higher than #2 though at one point falling to as low as #14 (Duke never fell from the #1 spot that year). They opened the season against #11 UCLA in Springfield, MA but lost by 15. Another neutral site loss to #14 Kentucky (74-76) put the Hoosiers at 2-2 early, but a win over #10 St. John's at MSG on 12/21 was the hallmark of their non-conference season, despite them blowing everyone else out of the water (they won all their other games by at least 17 points). In conference they were generally impressive (14.3 MOV), beating Ohio St. twice when they were ranked #4 and #6, beating #11 Michigan State by 30, and #16 Michigan by 15, not to mention wins over Minnesota and Purdue at home by 46 and 41 points respectively. On the road though this Indiana team was less impressive, and all four of their conference losses happened away from Assembly Hall (MSU, 60-76, Minnesota, 67-71, Michigan, 60-68, and Purdue, 59-61). Their 14-4 performance in the Big Ten (the conference's 15.91 SRS score that year was 10th highest in the modern era) got them 2nd in the conference that year, and was enough to give them a #2 seed in the NCAA tournament. Indiana generally took care of business the first three rounds, but not with the dominance we've seen in other teams. Against #1 seed UCLA in the Elite 8, however, they left their mark, winning by 28 points, which remains the biggest beatdown of a #1 seed since the tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1984-85. Indiana would lose their next game to Duke in the Final Four, 81-78. Without even a Final Four win and 6 losses prior to the tournament though, while statistically very impressive, this Indiana team is not the modern GOAT.
  

• 1990-91 UNLV: you might be asking why we're talking about the UNLV team that didn't win it all in '90-91 and not the UNLV team that did in '89-90, which included a 30 point beatdown of Duke in the 1990 national title game (which remains Duke's worst loss in the NCAA tournament in the modern era). But this UNLV team was better. Greg Anthony, Larry Johnson and Stacey Augmon were all back, looking to repeat, and they went 34-1, riding a 45 game win streak coming into a rematch with Duke in the Final Four. Their loss there remains one of the greatest upsets in tournament history (UNLV was a 9 point favorite). This team was an absolute machine, with an average MOV of 26.74, and a total SRS of 31.12 (the previous season's team went 35-5 with a 24.45 SRS). They were #1 in the AP poll every week of the year. If their tournament performance prior to the Duke game looked more like '92-93 Kentucky's (who had an average margin of victory of 31 to that point), it might make this team's argument stronger. But with such a weak strength of schedule (UNLV's 4.38 is by far the lowest of all the teams in consideration, with '06-07 Florida next in line), without a title, and without the dominance other teams have shown in the tourney prior to losing, ultimately '90-91 UNLV probably isn't the modern GOAT either

Some Final Considerations on last year's UConn Team

UConn's record Against-the-Spread kind of perfectly demonstrates how we seemed to sort of ignore, or at least underappreciate their dominance all year. In theory, Vegas' point spreads should adjust as a team repeatedly wins by more than expected. But that adjustment was never quite enough this year, and UConn continued to surprise to the upside. It felt like it really took until the National Championship game to really allow us to say ok, wow, this UConn team is actually really good. UConn's 28-12 record against the spread (70% cover rate) ties Villanova's 28-12 ATS record for the highest for a national champion (since at least '1995).

And for those of you who keep saying "Purdue was not that good and / or was overrated," consider this: Purdue's SRS rating of 24.93 puts it in the top 0.50% percentile of all teams since '84-85. While UConn will, and should, get all the credit, Purdue actually won all of its tournament games in pretty dominant it-really-doesn't-feel-like-they're-going-to-lose-this-game fashion as well (though with the exception of Tennessee). Purdue won their games by 28, 39, 12, 6 (this was the Tennessee game), and then by 13, before finally losing to UConn in the finale. Similar to the 2020-21 National Championship game, last year's game gave us the best two teams of the year, and in similar fashion to that year, one team made it abundantly clear who was better. But that doesn't mean this Purdue team somehow wasn't good. Just like Gonzaga in '21, Purdue was good too. Sure, they were a little boring to watch sometimes the way they'd just dump the ball down into Edey in the post. But that isn't totally dissimilar to how the Kobe-Shaq Lakers dynasty of the '99-01 NBA operated with the triangle offense either. Should those titles get discredited because Shaq was so big and dominant too?

Lastly, while this isn't particularly relevant in evaluating how good a team is, arguably the most impressive thing about this year's UConn team is how uncelebrated their roster was from a recruiting perspective. UConn lost several crucial pieces of the 2022-23 tournament team (only 42.6% of minutes and 36.6% of scoring returned from last year's roster), yet reloaded with solid role pieces and put together a remarkably blended team. Yes, they have 4 top 100 high school players in their rotation (Stephon Castle was 9 and Clingan was 37, while Samson Johnson was 47 and Hassan Diara was 64 in their respective classes), but UConn's three highest production players were the furthest thing from high school studs. Cam Spencer was playing at Rutgers last year and at Loyola Maryland for the three years before that. He had no offers besides Loyola Maryland coming out of high school. Tristen Newton played at East Carolina for three years before transferring to UConn in 2022. Three other Top 100 freshmen filled out the bench this year (indicating UConn at least has something in the pipeline), but this team was the furthest thing from Duke in 2019 or Kentucky in 2012. Consequently, Danny Hurley's performance this year is probably one of the best coaching jobs of all time, in any sport, period. At the start of the year, Stephon Castle was projected as the 7th overall pick, while Clingan was projected 24th. Pre-Draft, both Castle and Clingan are still in the lottery, but Alex Karaban, Tristen Newton and Cam Spencer were all projected in the 2nd round. Castle would end up going 4th overall, Clingan would go 7th, Newton would go 49th, and Cam Spencer would go 53rd, while Karaban ultimately decided to withdraw and return to UConn for the 24-25 season. Hurley therefore coached two of the three top production guys for UConn from highly untouted recruits to NBA players. Bravo.

The Final List:

In closing, here's my final list of the greatest teams in the modern era. I give '95-96 Kentucky the crown over '23-24 UConn, but barely. The '00-01 Duke team is also very much in the conversation at #3. Last to note is that in contrast to ESPN, I have the '98-99 Duke team ahead of the '98-99 UConn team that beat them. Just because they beat them in one game, doesn't mean they were the better team. Head-to-head is a factor, but it's not necessarily the factor.