In order, whats your top 10 mens basketball programs of all time?

[NationalChamps8516]

There is not enough Villanova love in your top 10 lists. We were in the first final four and are reigning national champs. In between we won a National Championship in Rupp Arena!

(We aren't top 5, but we are top 10).

 

[NationalChamps8516]

if we're going by straight up numbers - overall wins, titles, NCAA appearances, FF, etc -it doesn't matter when those games were won, only that they were. Cherry picking the years applicable has to be done for everyone, not just a few.
so, IMO - it's
1. UK
2. UCLA (the only reason why not #1 is overall wins and number of FF, titles notwithstanding)
3. unc** <gag>
4. Duke
5. IU
6. KU
7. UConn
8. UofL
9. OSU
10. Michigan State*
*the reason why OSU is ahead of MSU on this is because OSU has 11 final fours, with four runners up, to Michigan State's 9 FFs with 1 runner up; each have one title

Michigan State has 2 titles. '79 (Magic) and 2000. OSU doesn't belong on this list.

UK, imo, is over UCLA do to complete body of work over history, including the amount of success over the last 35 years. If you are just disregarding when titles were won... UCLA.

 

[RondoBaller21]

UK
UCLA
Duke
UNC
Kansas
Indiana
Louisville
Uconn
Michigan State
Ohio State

 

[Jkwo]

There is not enough Villanova love in your top 10 lists. We were in the first final four and are reigning national champs. In between we won a National Championship in Rupp Arena!

(We aren't top 5, but we are top 10).

I think you can argue with a couple of those schools for the 10 spot - MSU, OSU, etc. 2 titles is nice, but lack of F4s is fairly stark in that company.

 

[millayc]

1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. Duke
4. UNC
5. Kansas
6. UConn
7. Indiana
8. Louisville
9. Michigan State
10. Syracuse

You put UConn in front of IU?? I'm curious as to your reason. As far as history and tradition, IU is clearly ahead of UCONN.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

You put UConn in front of IU?? I'm curious as to your reason. As far as history and tradition, IU is clearly ahead of UCONN.

Yeah and they haven't been relevant in forever. They have five titles for their entire history and have made one final four since 1992. UConn has four national titles in a 15-year span.

Like it or not, that long of a gap with little success plays a factor in how you're viewed.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

I think it pretty easy to list the my favorite top 30 teams.

1.) US
2 - 30.) Our opponent.

 

[Son_Of_Saul]

I love going through this thread and seeing how the mods cleaned house!

Great job, mods!

 

[TopCatCal]

Criteria: Championships and FFs, what have you done over time, what have you done lately, what have you done over multiple coaches

1) Kentucky
2) UNC
3) Duke
4) UConn
5) UCLA
6) Kansas
7) Ville
8) Nova
9) Indiana
10) Michigan State

2 or more Modern Era championships plus UCLA and Mich State:

Good informative first post.

 

[Bkocats]

Michigan State has 2 titles. '79 (Magic) and 2000. OSU doesn't belong on this list.

UK, imo, is over UCLA do to complete body of work over history, including the amount of success over the last 35 years. If you are just disregarding when titles were won... UCLA.

OMG remembered the 79, forgot the 2000 - thanks for the correction

 

[Montana81]

Yeah and they haven't been relevant in forever. They have five titles for their entire history and have made one final four since 1992. UConn has four national titles in a 15-year span.

Like it or not, that long of a gap with little success plays a factor in how you're viewed.

Uconn had zero final fours before '99 though. So all of their success has been in a 17 year window. IU won titles in 4 different decades spanning 47 years and has been to the Final Four in 6 different decades spanning 62 years. The entirety of Uconns tourney success spanned a mere 15 seasons(though it was quite an impressive run).

And honesty I know Crean is not very highly thought of but I'd bet on him before I'd bet on Ollie going forward but maybe that's just me. Ollie won his ship with a bunch of dudes that already knew how to get the job done. They've had all kinds of talent the last two seasons and looked like a total cluster **** the better part of those two seasons.

 

[KnowsAllTellsAll]

Kansas
Kentucky
Duke
UNC
UCLA
Indiana
Michigan State
Louisville
UConn
Arizona (for lack of anyone else)

 

[NationalChamps8516]

Kansas
Kentucky
Duke
UNC
UCLA
Indiana
Michigan State
Louisville
UConn
Arizona (for lack of anyone else)

Arizona? Wrong Wildcats.

 

[Bkocats]

@NationalChamps8516 is correct about OSU - if we're going by titles
After the top 8 (3 titles or more),

UCLA (11) 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995
Kentucky (8) 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012
Duke (5) 1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015
Indiana (5) 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987
North Carolina (5) 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009
Connecticut (4) 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014
Kansas (3) 1952, 1988, 2008
Louisville (3) 1980, 1986, 2013

7 schools have two titles:
Cincinnati 1961, 1962
Florida 2006, 2007
Michigan State 1979, 2000
North Carolina State 1974, 1983
Oklahoma State (Oklahoma A&M) 1945, 1946
San Francisco 1955, 1956
Villanova 1985 2016

so using his (?) rationale for relevancy, (plus overall wins, FF appearances, time frames, etc) - here is what I think:
Kentucky
UCLA
unc**
Duke
Kansas
IU
Uconn
uofl**
MSU
Villanova

 

[Blueisbest]

1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. Duke
4. UNC
5. Kansas
6. Indiana
7. Louisville
8. UConn
9. Michigan State
10. Syracuse

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

Uconn had zero final fours before '99 though. So all of their success has been in a 17 year window. IU won titles in 4 different decades spanning 47 years and has been to the Final Four in 6 different decades spanning 62 years. The entirety of Uconns tourney success spanned a mere 15 seasons(though it was quite an impressive run).

And honesty I know Crean is not very highly thought of but I'd bet on him before I'd bet on Ollie going forward but maybe that's just me. Ollie won his ship with a bunch of dudes that already knew how to get the job done. They've had all kinds of talent the last two seasons and looked like a total cluster **** the better part of those two seasons.

Ollie took a 7 seed to the championship. Crean is garbage.

It's a "what have you done for me lately" thing. Indiana is the only one those teams who hasn't been to multiple final fours since 1992.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

Uconn had zero final fours before '99 though. So all of their success has been in a 17 year window. IU won titles in 4 different decades spanning 47 years and has been to the Final Four in 6 different decades spanning 62 years. The entirety of Uconns tourney success spanned a mere 15 seasons(though it was quite an impressive run).

And honesty I know Crean is not very highly thought of but I'd bet on him before I'd bet on Ollie going forward but maybe that's just me. Ollie won his ship with a bunch of dudes that already knew how to get the job done. They've had all kinds of talent the last two seasons and looked like a total cluster **** the better part of those two seasons.

The issue is: do you give more credit for winning over the past 62 years or the more recent wins?
For me, the more recent wins have more value. All D1 teams are open for the tournament. That was not the case back in the "glory days" when only 1 team from each conference was allowed to participate.
Often the best team did not attend due to cost, school president not really caring about sports, location, travel, playing in a closer tournament, ....
Today, it would be very rare for even the most cash strapped team to turn down an invitation.

 

[NationalChamps8516]

Revised approach:

Historic Blue Bloods
1) Kentucky
2) UCLA
3) Kansas
4) UNC
5) Indiana

Modern Elite
1) Duke
2) UConn
3) UNC
4) Kentucky
5) Louisville
6) Kansas
7) Villanova
8) Michigan State
9) Florida
10) Syracuse
11) Arizona

 

[Bkocats]

Revised approach:

Historic Blue Bloods
1) Kentucky
2) UCLA
3) Kansas
4) UNC
5) Indiana

Modern Elite
1) Duke
2) UConn
3) UNC
4) Kentucky
5) Louisville
6) Kansas
7) Villanova
8) Michigan State
9) Florida
10) Syracuse
11) Arizona

while technically we have to put unc** on this list, it makes me want to gag to do so - they don't deserve it with the systemic fraud of the last 20+ years.
The rest looks good though - I'd move UK to #3

 

[NationalChamps8516]

while technically we have to put unc** on this list, it makes me want to gag to do so - they don't deserve it with the systemic fraud of the last 20+ years.
The rest looks good though - I'd move UK to #3

UNC's issues were only academic fraud. That's not really in the scope of the NCAA.

 

[Bkocats]

UNC's issues were only academic fraud. That's not really in the scope of the NCAA.

it is when it suits them

 

[wcc31]

Revised approach:

Historic Blue Bloods
1) Kentucky
2) UCLA
3) Kansas
4) UNC
5) Indiana

Modern Elite
1) Duke
2) UConn
3) UNC
4) Kentucky
5) Louisville
6) Kansas
7) Villanova
8) Michigan State
9) Florida
10) Syracuse
11) Arizona

Love time constraint arguments. What constitutes "modern"? UK has four titles and 10 F4s in the last 40 years.

 

[bthaunert]

The issue is: do you give more credit for winning over the past 62 years or the more recent wins?
For me, the more recent wins have more value. All D1 teams are open for the tournament. That was not the case back in the "glory days" when only 1 team from each conference was allowed to participate.
Often the best team did not attend due to cost, school president not really caring about sports, location, travel, playing in a closer tournament, ....
Today, it would be very rare for even the most cash strapped team to turn down an invitation.

Never understand this argument. So does this mean that 1975 is the first we start counting titles because prior to 1975 there were never more than 25 teams (and 1 team per conference) in the tournament? Should we wipe out 4 of our titles because of that? If this is the case Duke is hands down the greatest program of all time with us, UNC and UConn battling for 2nd.

 

[wcc31]

Never understand this argument. So does this mean that 1975 is the first we start counting titles because prior to 1975 there were never more than 25 teams (and 1 team per conference) in the tournament? Should we wipe out 4 of our titles because of that? If this is the case Duke is hands down the greatest program of all time with us, UNC and UConn battling for 2nd.

That's because it's a BS argument. Was it a national tournament back in the 40s and 50s? Yes.

You could argue it was harder to get into, thus cutting some of the fat.

I hate recency bias. The world didn't come to be when ESPN started.

 

[JonathanW]

Never understand this argument. So does this mean that 1975 is the first we start counting titles because prior to 1975 there were never more than 25 teams (and 1 team per conference) in the tournament? Should we wipe out 4 of our titles because of that? If this is the case Duke is hands down the greatest program of all time with us, UNC and UConn battling for 2nd.

I don't think the argument means that you don't count or consider titles before the mid-70's. But I think it just means they are weighted differently. Just like come tournament time you have to weight a win over a top team a week ago a little bit more than a win over a top team back in November. Although the reason is a bit different. The main reasons are: 1) that 50 & 60 years ago fewer schools put much effort into their basketball programs so there simply weren't as many good teams to compete for titles; 2) over the past 30-40 years the rules have changed to create more parity, also making it more difficult to win; 3) the tournament has expanded first to allow more than 1 team from each conference, and then to allow even more teams in (going from 48 to 64), so in the rare case we have had a team win it all that would not have even made the tournament after expansion to 48 teams; and 4) the tournament structure changed to balance it out geographically so that a team from a weak geographic area (West) wouldn't have a cake-walk to the F4.
So maybe a title before 1975 is worth 75% of a title after 1975. Or 80%, or 60% or 90%. But they aren't quite equal.

 

[Bkocats]

That's because it's a BS argument. Was it a national tournament back in the 40s and 50s? Yes.

You could argue it was harder to get into, thus cutting some of the fat.

I hate recency bias. The world didn't come to be when ESPN started.

I've wondered that, myself. Yes, the tourney is much more open now, with 68 teams having a "chance" - but honestly, only no one lower than an 8 seed has ever won the tourney; heck, only three 8-seeds has EVER made the FF (and, of course, only one has won).
Maybe it would be more exciting during the season (especially in the SEC), if we cut the number of teams able to make the tourney every year back to 32, as it was from 75-78 - or maybe just use the conference tournies as the first rounds

 

[LeonThe Camel]

Never understand this argument. So does this mean that 1975 is the first we start counting titles because prior to 1975 there were never more than 25 teams (and 1 team per conference) in the tournament? Should we wipe out 4 of our titles because of that? If this is the case Duke is hands down the greatest program of all time with us, UNC and UConn battling for 2nd.

I do not think you just wipe them out, but I believe you have to give greater weight to the more recent championships. It is an era where the playing field is much more level.
Look at the time when teams could play in botht he NCAA and NIT, then that was changed and certain teams chose the NIT over the NCAA. And like I said before, some teams were not allowed to travel far from campus for after season tournaments.
On top of that look at the teams that were not a conference winner but won the NCAA championship since 1975.
The less teams you play, the less chances of being upset.
2015 Duke won while ND was the AQ from the ACC
2014 UCONN won while Louisville was the AQ from AAC
2013 Louisville won and was AQ from AAC
2012 We won while Vandy was the AQ from the SEC
2011 UCONN won and was the AQ
2010 Duke won and was the AQ.

Out of the last 6 championships, half were won by teams that received at large bids. They would not be allowed to be int he tournament prior to 1975. And that includes our latest championship.

 

[morgousky]

Can't wait for all the Duke "modern elite" lmao lovers to turn 65 and be told nothing they did under coach K is relevant anymore

I wonder if they will Change their tune in 2060?

 

[JonathanW]

Winning the tournament today being tougher isn't due to the start of ESPN, but rather is simply coincidental. That is the difference between CAUSATION and CORRELATION.

I've listed in this thread the many reasons why it is more difficult in 2017 to win a championship than it was in 1990, which was more difficult than in 1980, which was more difficult than it was in 1970, which was more difficult than it was in 1950.

True, no team lower than an 8 has won a tournament, but lots of contending teams (4 seeds or higher) have been beaten by a 9 seed or lower. You went from having to win 4 in a row, to 5, to 6. There have been double-digit seeds (teams that would not have even made the tournament in 1980) in the F4. You have the odds-on favorite winning it all maybe once every 4-5 years, where as 40-60 years ago, the favorite won it at least 50% of the time (probably closer to 75%). Since seeding started, 21 out of 38 years has one of the top 4 teams (1-seeds) won the tournament, only 55%. Even though Villanova was a 2-seed last year, by 1974 rules they would not have even made the tournament. Same for several other post 74 winners, I estimate about a dozen of the past 38 winners (just looking at the years since seeding started).

I would also like to see the number of teams cut (between 32 & 48), although I'd like a really good conference to have the chance to send 4 schools. But I also like giving the non-major conference teams at least a chance.

 

[JonathanW]

Out of the last 6 championships, half were won by teams that received at large bids. They would not be allowed to be int he tournament prior to 1975. And that includes our latest championship.

Also our 96 team, which many of us consider one of the best teams of all-time.

 

[JonathanW]

Love time constraint arguments. What constitutes "modern"? UK has four titles and 10 F4s in the last 40 years.

That is a tricky one. You just don't go from "old" to "modern" over night. But if you have to place a cutoff, perhaps it could be when the tournament expanded to allow more than 1 team per conference, or when it went to 48 or even 64 teams.

 

[Bkocats]

<~~is very much appreciating this conversation; some great points/arguments made

 

[catdance]

Kansas
Kentucky
Duke
UNC
UCLA
Indiana
Michigan State
Louisville
UConn
Arizona (for lack of anyone else)

You represent your fan base well. KnowsNothingFullofSh*t

 

[TopCatCal]

Revised approach:

Historic Blue Bloods
1) Kentucky
2) UCLA
3) Kansas
4) UNC
5) Indiana

Modern Elite
1) Duke
2) UConn
3) UNC
4) Kentucky
5) Louisville
6) Kansas
7) Villanova
8) Michigan State
9) Florida
10) Syracuse
11) Arizona

What's the definition of the THE MODERN ERA of college basketball? I believe it's when each fan first started following college BB. Myself I became a fan of college BB in 1969, so a fan like myself might say the modern era started in 69. I know some fans that started watching college BB in 1974. So those fans would probably say the modern era started in 74. Since 1974, Kentucky has won 4 national championships under 4 different head coaches, been to 11 final fours and 19 Elite Eights. So to put the likes of UCONN or anyone else over UK is absurd. This cherry picking your year that you call the SO CALLED MODERN ERA is just plain silly. The only way to be fair about this is. IN THE HISTORY OF COLLEGE BASKETBALL.

 

[NationalChamps8516]

How do we define the modern era? I agree picking any one date is a bit arbitrary, with historical being before that date and modern being after it. I chose 1980 and here's why. There was a big change in basketball in the 1970s. The Wooden dynasty ended. TV coverage in general increased, and specifically tournament coverage started to become significant. The field size increased in the 1970s. The 1970s was a big decade of change. In 1980 the field went to 48, and in 1985 to 64. The shot clock was introduced in 1986 and the 3 point line in 1987. The Big East's first conference champion was Georgetown in 1980. The Big East helped usher in modern NCAA basketball and had a big impact on the tournament and even the larger culture. Money came into college sports in a big way in the 1980s and coaches became millionaires. So I think a definition of modern somewhere from the mid 70s to the mid 80s is at least one defendable definition. I went with 1980. No era should really be diminished, but it is hard to compare different eras. The Ivy league schools once dominated college football.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

Also our 96 team, which many of us consider one of the best teams of all-time.

True, I just was looking at the most recent (and being lazy) rather than doing a lot more review of the other teams.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

That's because it's a BS argument. Was it a national tournament back in the 40s and 50s? Yes.

You could argue it was harder to get into, thus cutting some of the fat.

I hate recency bias. The world didn't come to be when ESPN started.

Technically true. But then again we like to diminish UCLA's championships with a certain bias: it happened all at one, it was all under one coach, Wooden used Gilbert ....
But based on the "Was it a national championship back" then? statement, the answer here is yes as well.
If the measurement is reaching the pinnacle, then UCLA has to be #1. And that ain't happening.
We like to make a bias decision by adding conference domination, most wins, number of coaches who have won. But for me it is simply, us because that is who I think it should be.

The Boston Celtics have the most NBA championships
The New York Yankees have the most MLB World Series
Pittsburgh Steelers with the most SuperBowls. The only argument could be someone who like San Francisco or Dallas.
USA with the most Gold medals
Michael Phelps with the most Gold medals individually

 

[JonathanW]

How do we define the modern era? I agree picking any one date is a bit arbitrary, with historical being before that date and modern being after it. I chose 1980 and here's why. There was a big change in basketball in the 1970s. The Wooden dynasty ended. TV coverage in general increased, and specifically tournament coverage started to become significant. The field size increased in the 1970s. The 1970s was a big decade of change. In 1980 the field went to 48, and in 1985 to 64. The shot clock was introduced in 1986 and the 3 point line in 1987. The Big East's first conference champion was Georgetown in 1980. The Big East helped usher in modern NCAA basketball and had a big impact on the tournament and even the larger culture. Money came into college sports in a big way in the 1980s and coaches became millionaires. So I think a definition of modern somewhere from the mid 70s to the mid 80s is at least one defendable definition. I went with 1980. No era should really be diminished, but it is hard to compare different eras. The Ivy league schools once dominated college football.

You did add a good point that we have all ignored. $$$$
And that ($$$) increase was largely driven by the Big East and their association with that 4-letter tv network. The rapid increase in $$$ drove schools to invest in their basketball teams way more than before.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

You did add a good point that we have all ignored. $$$$
And that ($$$) increase was largely driven by the Big East and their association with that 4-letter tv network. The rapid increase in $$$ drove schools to invest in their basketball teams way more than before.

So 1979?

 

[JonathanW]

Technically true. But then again we like to diminish UCLA's championships with a certain bias: it happened all at one, it was all under one coach, Wooden used Gilbert ....
But based on the "Was it a national championship back" then? statement, the answer here is yes as well.
If the measurement is reaching the pinnacle, then UCLA has to be #1. And that ain't happening.
We like to make a bias decision by adding conference domination, most wins, number of coaches who have won. But for me it is simply, us because that is who I think it should be.

The Boston Celtics have the most NBA championships
The New York Yankees have the most MLB World Series
Pittsburgh Steelers with the most SuperBowls. The only argument could be someone who like San Francisco or Dallas.
USA with the most Gold medals
Michael Phelps with the most Gold medals individually

Championships are, and should be, a big factor (probably the biggest). But they shouldn't, can't be, the ONLY factor.
Say you had a 50-yr old sport with one team having 8 championships in their 50 year history, but the other 42 years had losing records every year. Is that team better than the team that has only 5 championships, but has a winning record every single (50) year, and made the semi-finals 20 times? Of course not! I know that is an extreme example, but it points out how you can't ONLY look at championships. Generally the team with the most championships is also better, or at least no worse, than other teams in most other factors. College basketball is different, in that UK leads in almost every factor you can look at, except in championships. And similarly, UCLA trails 3 schools in most factors, except of course in championships.