Ranking Duke Teams

  Recently, on the Duke Basketball Report bbs, there was an interesting debate as to the best Duke teams of the past 16 years.  Obviously, this subject can never truly be decided, but it does make for an interesting topic for debate.  The problem with the discussion over there was that there were several different debates going on at once.  One of them was which team had the best talent, another was which had the best overall season, and another that seemed to place a large emphasis on whether or not they took home the national title.  Another debate came was over which team would beat which.  The latter topic seems to be largely a matter of matchups and not necessarily a matter of which team was better.  But the first three items all seemed to be equally important.     So I ranked each of the last 16 teams from 1-16 in the following three  categories: Talent, Regular Season Accomplishments [to include the ACC  tournament], and NCAA Tournament Performance.  Talent was judged on national & ACC player of the year awards, all-americas, and NBA draft placement.   Obviously, a number of players got counted twice, with tiebreakers going to  older "versions" of those players.  Regular season performance was based on  overall records, strength of schedule and tourney performance.  NCAA success  had tiebreakers in the team's overall performance and strength of opponent.   I don't pretend to say that this was a perfect system, but it's at least an  attempt to quantify greatness.  In the scoring system, the lower the score,  the better.  An ideal score is 3 (#1 in each category), the lowest possible  score is 48.  The team's total score is listed, followed by their individual scores in talent/regular season/NCAA's.  Some of the results will be controversial.

#15 [tie]:  1995.  46 points (14/16/16).  They managed to tie the 1995 team because of the talent of lotto picks like Cherokee Parks and the presence of Trajan Langdon.  Just goes to show what the presence of Coach K means to the team.

#15 [tie]:  1996.  46 points (16/15/15).  The Bridge Team made a valiant effort and overcome a ridiculous number of injuries to make it to the NCAA's, but they simply couldn't win in either the ACC or NCAA tournament.  Not a single player on this team made it to the NBA (excluding Langdon, who did not play).

#14: 1997.  39 points (15/10/14).  I am still amazed that the all-guard team managed to win the ACC when Wake still had Tim Duncan and UNC had Carter & Jamison.  The star-crossed senior class dragged down the talent level and the ACC & NCAA flameouts hurt their overall ranking.

#13: 1987.  38 points (12/14/12).  Tommy Amaker, Danny Ferry and friends  took this team a lot farther than anyone would have guessed.  Though they didn't win big, they proved that Duke was more than a flash in the pan.

#12: 1993.  32 points (7/12/13).  The two-time defending champs had three future lottery picks and two all-americans, but chemistry problems doomed them down the stretch. 

#10 [tie]: 1990.  30 points (10/13/7).  This was a team that underachieved all year behind some shaky senior leadership until the NCAA tournament that took them all the way to the finals. 

#10 [tie]: 1988.  30 points (13/9/8).  One of my all-time favorite Duke teams.  Incredibly undersized and with at times a shaky backcourt, this team won with the star power of Ferry and a relentless defense.  Beat UNC three times and shut down #1 Temple to advance to the Final Four.

#9: 1989.  28 points (8/11/9).  This team gets the extra bonus of having national player of the year Ferry and talented frosh Laettner, along with a much-improved Quin Snyder.  Struggled a bit at times in the regular season, but beat #1 seed Georgetown to advance to the Final Four.

#8: 2000.  25 points (9/5/11).  If only this team had advanced a bit further in the NCAA tournament, it would have been considered a top-6 team.  Another one of my favorites, as the three players who didn't abandon ship after 1999 stepped up their games and helped guide a talented group of freshmen to a 15-1 ACC record, and another tournament title. 

#7: 1994.  23 points (11/8/4).  Beyond the greatness of Grant Hill and talent of Parks, this team was essentially a bunch of solid role players that massively overachieved.  One of Duke's smartest teams and certainly one with excellent chemistry.

#6: 1998. 20 points (4/6/10).  A team that was jam-packed with talent, going 12-deep.  They also won an amazing 15 ACC games, most of them without superb frosh Elton Brand.  Losing the ACC title and just falling short of the Final Four knocks them down a bit, but this team was a special one.

#5: 1986. 14 points (6/2/6).  It blows my mind to see this legendary team at a mere #5, but they won with their chemistry as much as they did with their talent.  They won the ACC regular season and tournament titles in one of the best years for the league ever, and Johnny Dawkins proved his greatness again and again.  The only team that matched this one for mental toughness was the 2001 unit.

#4: 1991. 13 points (5/7/1).  While it's a bit weird to see a national title team not in the top three, it must be remembered that this team was still pretty young and inconsistent.  They were blown out by quite a few teams, including by UNC in the ACC finals.  But they had the greatest NCAA run in Duke history, cruising into the Final Four and then shocking undefeated UNLV before winning their first title.

#3: 2001. 9 points (3/4/2).  The top three teams show very little separation. The 2001 club had a lot of talent, including 2 players of the year in Battier and Williams, but were even more remarkable when displaying their toughness. They survived injuries and a competitive ACC and had the toughest overall Final Four opponents of any Duke team.  It'll be interesting to reevaluate this team in a couple of years when we find out what Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy & Duhon accomplish in the rest of their careers.

#2: 1992. 8 points (2/3/3).  This was a bit of a shock, considering that many rank this team as one of the best ever in NCAA history.  But as accomplished as they were, their ACC was a little less tough than the '86 team's and they didn't rampage their way through the league the way the '99 team did.  The '99 team also had a much tougher regular season schedule. While Indiana was truly a formidable opponent in the Final Four, the upstart Michigan team was not in the same league as the '01 Arizona team.  Still, going #1 coast to coast and surviving the pressure of defending the national title makes this a truly great team.  Really, the top three teams are 1a,  1b and 1c.

#1: 1999. 7 points (1/1/5).  How does a team that didn't win the national title wind up as Duke's best-ever team? By having the best talent (4 top 13 picks, plus the 2000 ACC player of the year and the 2001 player of the year who is likely to be a top 10 pick) and the best regular season (16-0 in the ACC).  This team was a juggernaut that struggled in the NCAA's a bit, but one must remember that UConn was #1 for much of the year and a great team in their own right.  Beating Duke was an upset, but they deserved the win.  Even so, it was a very close game, and if Trajan Langdon had scored in the waning seconds, there would be little debate as to which team was the best.  I think this team leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some fans because of the great exodus after the season, and the fact that team chemistry was fractured at times.  Still, this team was incredible to watch.

   Clearly, the top 5 teams in this list deserve to be considered among the best-ever in college basketball history.  6-9 were great teams that will always be fondly remembered in ACC history, while 10-12 either had great talent or defied the odds to achieve greatness.  When a team that comes in first place in the ACC is only ranked #14, you know that you're dealing with a truly storied program.   

   Reported by Rob Clough, tmc@duke.edu 

Rob's Archive