Best programs all time
- Thread starter ukhoops1
- Start date
In order of overall history and not just championships
UK
UNC
Duke
UCLA
Kansas
IU
Michigan St
Villanova
Louisville
Arizona
UK
UNC
Duke
UCLA
Kansas
IU
Michigan St
Villanova
Louisville
Arizona
If going by overall history and not championships, then how do you explain Duke over Kansas?
Also a joke putting Villanova over Louisville.
Top 9 is solid but I’d put UConn ahead of Arizona....many more titles and won them under 2 coaches
KU really has done much in a while and only 3 titles all time. Starting to wonder if they deserve Blueblood to describe them.
This comes up all the time. The answer doesn’t change. There are 4 elite programs. They are UK, KU, UNC, and Duke. It’s not hard. No idea who Jake Adkins is, presumably he is a Louisville fan to include them in that group in his poll.
Well yeah, but the inventor of basketball invented basketball at their school....they aren't UK, UNC, Duke, etc...but they are definition of a blue blood.
Not to mention he coached Phog Allen who then coached Rupp and Dean.
Kansas, like it or not is forever a blue blood just like us and UNC....likely Duke too.
People’s memories are short. Duke has arguably been better than Kentucky over the last 30 years, but it’s By a very small margin. And prior to Coach K, Kentucky’s legacy would have obliterated Duke. The fact that those two schools are mentioned in the same breath as comparable programs over the long haul is preposterous.
I'll throw in Georgetown. 1984 champs, 3 runners-up, 4 Final Fours. Comparable to anything Arizona has accomplished.
There is no way duke is any more than 4th imo. Ratface hasn’t done anywhere near what wooden did. Wooden had some all time nba greats too. What’s Ratface claim now? Kyrie? UCLA more titles and overall more talent during their stretch.
He did round by round poll it final include Louisville thats y. Semifinals results was Louisville over UNC and UK over duke but then he didnt like 1 of poll results so he did this one
He’s a petulant child then. UK won that vote fair and square. I mean did he want it to be UofL and Duke? Heck. Even I would vote for the Devils at that point.
any person would vote Louisville over ANY of those programs is about the furthest thing from a basketball “fan”.
I hate Kansas but they are definitely a blue blood. Only 4 of them and were the lead dog!
The Kansas basketball resume is a total fraud. They have been eliminated from college basketball royalty since most all of their accomplishments are a result of cheating & malfeasance dating back to the despicable Larry Brown. Kansas is much closer to Iowa State than blue blood status according to astute minds.
1 - Kentucky - 8 NCAA championships - 12 championship games appearances
2 - Duke - 5 NCAA championships - 11 championships games appearances
3 - UCLA - 11 NCAA championships - 13 championships game appearances
4 - UNC - 6 NCAA championships - 11 - championships game appearances - REALLY ONLY 3 TITLES!!
5 - Kansas - 3 NCAA championships 9 championships game appearances
6 - Indiana - 5 NCAA championships - 6 championships game appearances
7 - Villanova - 3 NCAA championships - 4 championships game appearances
8 - Louisville - 2 NCAA championships - 2 championship game appearances
9 - Michigan St. - 2 NCAA championship - 3 championship game appearances
10 - UCONN - 4 NCAA championships - 4 championship game appearances
Of course there's more to being the all time best program than NCAA championships. Like most wins, most coaches with NCAA championships, most tournament appearances, ect. ect... This is what sets Kentucky apart from all others.
2 - Duke - 5 NCAA championships - 11 championships games appearances
3 - UCLA - 11 NCAA championships - 13 championships game appearances
4 - UNC - 6 NCAA championships - 11 - championships game appearances - REALLY ONLY 3 TITLES!!
5 - Kansas - 3 NCAA championships 9 championships game appearances
6 - Indiana - 5 NCAA championships - 6 championships game appearances
7 - Villanova - 3 NCAA championships - 4 championships game appearances
8 - Louisville - 2 NCAA championships - 2 championship game appearances
9 - Michigan St. - 2 NCAA championship - 3 championship game appearances
10 - UCONN - 4 NCAA championships - 4 championship game appearances
Of course there's more to being the all time best program than NCAA championships. Like most wins, most coaches with NCAA championships, most tournament appearances, ect. ect... This is what sets Kentucky apart from all others.
Honestly I think the most impressive stat isn’t just the most wins, it’s the best winning percentage. People could argue they’ve played more games to get those wins but it’s not the case. UK has the least losses to go with those most wins.
UK, UNC, Kansas, and Duke are 1-4 , with slight variation in order, in wins, winning percentage, and NCAA Tournament wins, with UK #1 in all 3 categories. And then those 4 are top 5 in Final Fours, and 4 of the top 6 in tournament winning % among schools that have played at least 50 tournament games.
UCLA was downright awful before Wooden (a coach with the incredibly great name of Caddy Works had 8 losing seasons in a row in the 30's, and Wilbur John- another good name- went 93-120 directly prior to Wooden), then merely good in the 1st half of Wooden's career, before dominating the sport for slightly more than a decade. Since then, they've only sporadically made national noise, and certainly wouldn't rate as a top 10 program from 76 to today.
UK has been nationally relevant for all except brief periods since the 30's, and the same is true of UNC going back to the mid-60's. In my mind, it's clearly UK-1, UNC-2. You can argue 3 based on what you deem more important. I'd say Duke, but if we're here 10 years from now and Duke hasn't challenged for a title since K retired, that could change.
6-7 would probably be UL and IU (though you could now argue against them), with schools like Michigan State, Syracuse, Arizona, UConn, Villanova, and maybe even a school like Ohio State, which has big win totals, and a lot of FF's, battling it to round out the top 10. Again, a lot depends on what you emphasize, particularly how much you value recency vs overall picture.
UCLA was downright awful before Wooden (a coach with the incredibly great name of Caddy Works had 8 losing seasons in a row in the 30's, and Wilbur John- another good name- went 93-120 directly prior to Wooden), then merely good in the 1st half of Wooden's career, before dominating the sport for slightly more than a decade. Since then, they've only sporadically made national noise, and certainly wouldn't rate as a top 10 program from 76 to today.
UK has been nationally relevant for all except brief periods since the 30's, and the same is true of UNC going back to the mid-60's. In my mind, it's clearly UK-1, UNC-2. You can argue 3 based on what you deem more important. I'd say Duke, but if we're here 10 years from now and Duke hasn't challenged for a title since K retired, that could change.
6-7 would probably be UL and IU (though you could now argue against them), with schools like Michigan State, Syracuse, Arizona, UConn, Villanova, and maybe even a school like Ohio State, which has big win totals, and a lot of FF's, battling it to round out the top 10. Again, a lot depends on what you emphasize, particularly how much you value recency vs overall picture.
I would agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that UNC should be stripped of 3 of their NCAA championships & something like 8 Final Fours & probably about 600 wins for the worst academic scandal in the history of college sports.
For those that want to include UCLA in the list of elites or bluebloods, I ask, is Yale an elite football program?
"Yale's football program is one of the oldest in the world (i.e. North America), having begun competing in the sport in 1872. The Bulldogs have a legacy that includes 27 national championships, two of the first three Heisman Trophy winners (Larry Kelley in 1936 and Clint Frank in 1937), 100 consensus All-Americans, 28 College Football Hall of Fame inductees, including the "Father of American Football" Walter Camp, the first professional football player Pudge Heffelfinger, and coaching giants Amos Alonzo Stagg, Howard Jones, Tad Jones and Carmen Cozza. With 890 wins, Yale ranks second in wins in college football history, trailing only the University of Michigan."
"Yale's football program is one of the oldest in the world (i.e. North America), having begun competing in the sport in 1872. The Bulldogs have a legacy that includes 27 national championships, two of the first three Heisman Trophy winners (Larry Kelley in 1936 and Clint Frank in 1937), 100 consensus All-Americans, 28 College Football Hall of Fame inductees, including the "Father of American Football" Walter Camp, the first professional football player Pudge Heffelfinger, and coaching giants Amos Alonzo Stagg, Howard Jones, Tad Jones and Carmen Cozza. With 890 wins, Yale ranks second in wins in college football history, trailing only the University of Michigan."
Well, to be fair, 30 years is a pretty significant amount of time. They’ve won 5 titles in those 30 years. They’ve played the championship game 11 times and 3 of those games were prior to the 30 year mark. They’ve also made 16 Final Fours. All those stats rank in the top 4 all time. So, while they weren’t what they are now before 1990, they were relevant. As much as I hate Duke, the deserve to be right up there in ALL TIME great programs. We’ve had 3 titles in that span compared to their 5, which in a significant stat when trying to determine who is the best. They also sit 4th all time in wins, only 116 wins behind the kings of all time. So, I don’t think it’s preposterous to include them in this debate. They’ve earned the right to be included.
U of L has one official Final Four in the last 33 years with no national title during that time. Besides one great 15 year stretch from 72 through 86 they've been a mediocre program. One great coaches heyday does not make a program a blue blood. Besides the 2000-10 decade every decade of UK's program has been more successful than any other decade of U of L's except the 80s. And UK has had four decades [40s, 50s, 90s and 2010 on], that have been as good as U of L was in the 80s. Heck, UK during the 70s was pretty damned close to what U of L was in the 80s.
This isn't apples and oranges. More like bowling balls and peas. They don't belong in the same sentence as UK.
This isn't apples and oranges. More like bowling balls and peas. They don't belong in the same sentence as UK.
They don't compare at all to UK, or UNC, Duke, and Kansas. Or UCLA.
But then you have to compare them to everyone else. They're 10th in wins, in the top 10 in winning % among schools with enough games to really matter, they have 10 FF's and won 3 titles (even if they always get to see "vacated" next to one). You can argue IU over them, and you can make a case for Michigan State if you want to lean towards more recent success (and de-emphasize titles, and ignore that Michigan State was generally a second-tier Big 10 school for a huge chunk of pre-Izzo history, whereas UL won 71% of their games under Peck Hickman, who coached from 44-67), but it's hard to realistically argue for anyone else.
Was Louisville really better than Kentucky from 2000-2009? Sure Louisville made 1 Final 4 while Kentucky did not, but I also remember them being pretty terrible for a few years and not even making the NIT.
Similar threads
