Do Championships Matter in GOAT Debates? Why Rings Are Overrated in Most Team Sports
Since the advent of cable television and especially social media, sports commentators and fans have felt more pressure to justify MVP votes, all-time rankings, and GOAT debates. Championships became an easy and glamorous way to do that. A ring is tangible. It is easy to count. It looks impressive on a résumé. Over time, championships became more important in judging individual greatness, and now I would argue that sports fans and commentators have gone too far. In many team sports, championships are being treated more emotionally than logically when ranking the greatest athletes of all time.
Except for the Greatest NBA Players of All Time, and to a lesser degree the Greatest NFL Quarterbacks of All Time—and perhaps NHL goalies—championships should be given relatively little weight when deciding how high an individual team-sport athlete belongs in GOAT discussions. The reason is simple: in most team sports, one player does not have enough control over the outcome to “drag” an otherwise ordinary team to a championship. A baseball player can only bat four or five times in a game. A soccer player may be the best player on the field and still depend on ten teammates, plus a goalkeeper. A hockey superstar may play only about one-third of the game. Greatness is individual; championships are team accomplishments.
Basketball is different, which is why rings matter more when debating players such as Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, and Kobe Bryant. A superstar basketball player can be on the court for most of the game, directly affect both offense and defense, and in a seven-game playoff series has repeated opportunities to influence the outcome. In my own Top 25 Greatest NBA Players of All Time list, the first 17 players all have at least one championship, and the top nine all have at least two. Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, and Charles Barkley are among the highest-ranked players without a title. In basketball, championships are not everything, but they clearly deserve to be an important factor.
The NFL quarterback is the next-best example because no position in American team sports has more individual influence on an offense. Even then, a quarterback does not play defense or special teams, and the NFL uses a single-elimination playoff format. One bad game, one terrible defensive performance, one missed field goal, one bad call, or one great opposing performance can end a season immediately. That is why Super Bowl rings should matter when ranking Tom Brady, Joe Montana, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, and other all-time quarterbacks, but they should not end the discussion. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, yet he is still consistently ranked among the greatest quarterbacks ever. No reasonable person says his lack of a ring means he was not great.
Career length also matters enormously when discussing championships in GOAT rankings. Professional stars, especially NBA players and NFL quarterbacks, can have careers lasting 13–23+ years. College athletes generally get four years, elite men’s basketball players may get only one, and some top football players stay only three. That gives professional stars far more chances to win championships. College athletes also face single-elimination tournaments, which obviously increases the luck factor. A great college basketball player may have only three or four serious chances to win a national title. One injury, one bad matchup, or one hot opposing team can end that opportunity forever.
The problem becomes even clearer when athletes attend different programs. Some stars choose blue-blood schools loaded with five-star recruits. Others do not. Using championships as a MAJOR criterion for college athletes is therefore silly and unfair when one player may be surrounded by future professionals while another is asked to carry a much weaker roster. Pete Maravich and Oscar Robertson are consistently ranked among the greatest men’s college basketball players of all time despite never winning NCAA championships. In college football, Jim Brown never won a national championship at Syracuse, yet ESPN ranked him the greatest college football player ever. Barry Sanders, Bo Jackson, Dick Butkus, and other legendary players are also regularly placed near the top despite lacking national titles.
Baseball makes the same point. Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, and Barry Bonds are regularly included among the greatest MLB players of all time, and none won a World Series championship. Nobody seriously argues that Ted Williams somehow becomes a lesser hitter because the Red Sox around him did not win a championship during his career. The same logic applies to professional soccer, hockey, and most other team sports. A championship can strengthen a résumé, but it should rarely be used as a shortcut to decide individual greatness.
Caitlin Clark is a recent example of how badly this “rings first” thinking can go off the rails. Her lack of an NCAA championship has been used by some people to dismiss her standing among the greatest women’s college basketball players of all time despite leading Iowa to two straight national championship games. At the same time, players such as Maravich, Robertson, Brown, Sanders, Marino, Williams, and Bonds have long been ranked among the greatest in their sports without championships. Whatever someone thinks of Clark specifically, the broader point is obvious: the championship standard has never been applied consistently across team sports, and it should not suddenly become the deciding factor whenever it is convenient.
Championships matter. They should matter. But in most team sports, they should be a supporting factor in GOAT discussions—not the deciding one. The better question is not simply, “How many rings did he or she win?” The better question is: How much control did that athlete realistically have over winning them?
That is the standard sports fans should use when debating the greatest athletes of all time. Otherwise, we are not really ranking individual greatness—we are ranking who happened to play on the best teams.
At UltimateRankings.com, fans can vote on the greatest athletes, players, teams, coaches, and entertainers of all time. If you disagree with the experts, commentators, or even this article, there is an easy solution: vote and help shape the rankings yourself.