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

[JonathanW]

So 1979?

There were a lot of significant changes from around 74 to 87, including but not limited to:
- FR eligibility
- Tournament accepting teams other than conference champs
- Balancing of tournament (not having teams play by geographic region to reach F4)
- Expansion to 48 teams
- Expansion to 64 teams
- Greatly expanded access to games on TV ==> $$$$
- 3 pt shot
- 45 second shot clock
- Early entry into NBA draft

 

[wcc31]

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

Don't say "we"- I'm sure as hell not diminishing UCLA's titles. I am taking everything into account. Speak for yourself.

 

[Bluemoon725]

1. Kentucky



...no one else matters

 

[MJWilliamson]

Championships are, and should be, a big factor (probably the biggest). But they shouldn't, can't be, the ONLY factor.

Completely agree. And if the number of championships is relatively the same, then the other factors must be considered. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand those that say a team with relatively few NCs can be ranked higher than any team with a lot of them.

The terms, "relatively few" and "a lot of them" is a subjective term to be sure. But if one team has three to four more NCs than another, the one with the most is always a more accomplished team than the one with fewer, no matter what other measures are considered.

 

[NationalChamps8516]

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.

Minor correction: Louisville 2013 was from the Big East.

 

[NationalChamps8516]

Completely agree. And if the number of championships is relatively the same, then the other factors must be considered. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand those that say a team with relatively few NCs can be ranked higher than any team with a lot of them.

The terms, "relatively few" and "a lot of them" is a subjective term to be sure. But if one team has three to four more NCs than another, the one with the most is always a more accomplished team than the one with fewer, no matter what other measures are considered.

In football Yale has 27 National Championships (the last one in 1927). Alabama has 16 (1925-2015).

 

[mattbpoole]

1. Kentucky
2. Kansas
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Indiana
6. UCLA
7. Louisville
8. UConn
9. Michigan State
T10. Cincinnati
T10. Florida

 

[MJWilliamson]

In football Yale has 27 National Championships (the last one in 1927). Alabama has 16 (1925-2015).

Poor comparison.There are no dispute about what consists of a BB NC. There has never been a NCAA sanctioned FB NC.

 

[NationalChamps8516]

Poor comparison.There are no dispute about what consists of a BB NC. There has never been a NCAA sanctioned FB NC.

Actually there is some dispute. For a while there was a choice between the NIT and the NCAAs. Often some of the best teams choose the NIT. As late as 1970 Al Maguire and Marquette chose the NIT over the NCAAs. No one argues that Alabama had a program competitive to Yale prior to the 1920s, and it is just a dispute over who is making the determination.

My point though is that timing matters and recency has some value on perception.

 

[hokie_jayhawk]

There are no dispute about what consists of a BB NC. There has never been a NCAA sanctioned FB NC.

There is still obviously debate about what constitutes a national championship in college basketball. Many schools, including 14 different power conference schools, currently claim national championships from an organization besides the NCAA. The claims range from AAU tournament titles to an American Legion Bowl Game to Helms titles. I don't think it's worth arguing about whether they count. It's pretty obvious most Kentucky fans don't think they do. But it does bring up another point that is often ignored in these debates, and that's any result before 1939.

Even if you don't think Kansas deserves to be called national champions in 1923 (when they went undefeated against college competition), isn't that more worthy of being included in an all-time best program debate than Austin Peay's NCAA tournament bid this season?

To me personally, these things are more about feel than anything else. And that's why three programs (in alphabetical order) stand above all to me: Kansas, Kentucky and North Carolina. They have all had their down periods, but they've always been there and probably always will be there. You can even argue about what the glory years really are for these programs.

Is Kansas's best period the early 1920s? Is it the 1950s? Is it the late 80s and early 90s? Is it their current form?

Is Kentucky's best period the early 1930s? The late 1940s and early 1950s? The late 1990s? Now?

Is UNC's best the early to mid-20s? The late 50s? The early 80s? Their current form under Roy?

Look, Duke, Indiana and UCLA are great. But they have all had too many years where they weren't a major player in the game.

And while schools like UConn, Louisville, and Michigan State are great, they don't have the consistent historical greatness.

The top ten is really a three tiered system to me:

Consistent historical contributors to the sport: UK, UNC, Kansas

Amazing programs with history-contributing runs: UCLA, Duke, Indiana

Extremely accomplished but less overall historical contributions: UConn, Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse


Ultimately, just imagine college basketball twenty years from now. Which four teams will be the best?

You're probably thinking Kentucky, UNC, Kansas and Duke. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about which programs are really the best?

 

[JPScott]

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

Really? You mean the same NCAA which makes Sound Academic Standards and Honesty & Ethical Conduct some of the core principles on which the association is based on? (i.e. all members who join are expected to be committed to.)

I suggest you read the NCAA manual as it's quite clear that these principles are the foundation of what the NCAA purports to be based on, and thus well within their scope when it comes to its members. (Regardless of whether they chose to ignore their own principles when it come to UNC.)

 

[NationalChamps8516]

Really? You mean the same NCAA which makes Sound Academic Standards and Honesty & Ethical Conduct some of the core principles on which the association is based on? (i.e. all members who join are expected to be committed to.)

I suggest you read the NCAA manual as it's quite clear that these principles are the foundation of what the NCAA purports to be based on, and thus well within their scope when it comes to its members. (Regardless of whether they chose to ignore their own principles when it come to UNC.)

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

 

[JPScott]

Actually there is some dispute. For a while there was a choice between the NIT and the NCAAs. Often some of the best teams choose the NIT. As late as 1970 Al Maguire and Marquette chose the NIT over the NCAAs.

McGuire's issue was an outlier, and based on the fact that he didn't like the Regional that Marquette was placed in, so he turned down the bid and opted for the NIT instead.

The NIT was a competitive tournament through the 1940's but by the time of the '51 gambling scandal, the NIT was no longer competitive with the NCAA.

And BTW, despite what some people assume, at no time was the NIT champion considered the de facto National Champion. (except other than probably 1938 when the NIT first started while the NCAA was still a year away from holding their own tournament.)

 

[JPScott]

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 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.

FWIW, I really don't buy the theory that it was easier to win in the past, although that argument is made often.

The reason I say this is that from what I've seen looking at various era going back to when the NCAA tournament started, at any given time there generally are between 15-20 teams with a legitimate chance at being a champion. And generally the champion ends up coming from that pool of 15-20 teams.

That was true in the 40's, the 50's, the 90's, the 2010's, you name it. The schools which emphasized and supported basketball strongly may have changed (and in fact they have, back in the 40's and 50's a lot of smaller schools were very competitive with the big boys, largely because most schools were recruiting regionally, so a team like a Holy Cross or a San Francisco could be nationally competitive if they got the right players), but overall the number of contenders from year to year are generally about the same IMO.

So based on that, I would say that in general the odds of winning it all are about the same. I.e. if you're one of the top 15-20 you have a shot, if you're outside that you probably don't.

What has changed (beyond the make-up of the schools themselves as already noted) certainly has been the format. I.e. at times the tournament field was smaller, which some people assume makes it easier to win the tournament, but what they don't recognize is that it also makes it harder to be invited to the tournament in the first place, so it tends to even itself out.

An example I like to give: two of UK's most dominant teams in recent history, 1996 and 2012, both which won the NCAA tournament, would not have even been invited to the NCAA tournament under rules which were in place in the late 1940's.

It's certainly true that there's more money to be had, and no doubt more schools promote basketball and see it as a revenue generator, but at the end of the day I don't see a huge difference in terms of how difficult it might be for a school to win a national championship, assuming that they are one of the 15-20 teams in the country. (if you want to argue that it's tougher for some random program to become competitive enough and go on to win a national championship I would agree with you, simply because the number of NCAA Division I members has expanded so much in recent decades, but my context is with regard to the Power Conference schools, which have a lot of advantages already giving them a leg up over most other schools once they commit to having a competitive basketball program and thus getting into the 15-20 range.)

 

[NationalChamps8516]

1949 - 1950 is interesting. In 1950 CCNY famously won both the NIT and the NCAA. In 1949, Kentucky played in both the NIT and the NCAA while San Francisco only played in the NIT. Kentucky won the NCAA and San Francisco won the NIT. Both claim a National Championship, and in my opinion both have a valid claim. At that time the NIT was highly regarded, with some saying it was more prestigious. Was the NCAA tournament in that period less competitive than it could be because some of the top talent went to the NIT? It's clear in the Modern Era that the NCAA champ is the National Champ.

 

[wcc31]

It's all BS used by those jealous of UK's history to try to take away from it.

 

[wcc31]

People are always trying to take away from Kentucky. I get it- everyone is aiming for the King. BUT it's weak. You can name anytime time period and we were the best or among the best. When talking ALL-TIME- which means ALL-TIME- we're the best. Enjoy your lame hypotheticals and everything else. We had it before you. We have it now. And we'll have it when you're gone.

 

[TopCatCal]

1949 - 1950 is interesting. In 1950 CCNY famously won both the NIT and the NCAA. In 1949, Kentucky played in both the NIT and the NCAA while San Francisco only played in the NIT. Kentucky won the NCAA and San Francisco won the NIT. Both claim a National Championship, and in my opinion both have a valid claim. At that time the NIT was highly regarded, with some saying it was more prestigious. Was the NCAA tournament in that period less competitive than it could be because some of the top talent went to the NIT? It's clear in the Modern Era that the NCAA champ is the National Champ.

If winning the NCAA championship was so cheap and easy in the 1940s & 50s. My question to you is this. Why didn't your team (Villanova) win one? I mean if it was such low hanging fruit. Why didn't Villanova pick them off one of those big shiny championship apples.

 

[JPScott]

1949 - 1950 is interesting. In 1950 CCNY famously won both the NIT and the NCAA. In 1949, Kentucky played in both the NIT and the NCAA while San Francisco only played in the NIT. Kentucky won the NCAA and San Francisco won the NIT. Both claim a National Championship, and in my opinion both have a valid claim. At that time the NIT was highly regarded, with some saying it was more prestigious. Was the NCAA tournament in that period less competitive than it could be because some of the top talent went to the NIT? It's clear in the Modern Era that the NCAA champ is the National Champ.

There's a lot of claims made in the above, it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, while San Francisco lists the 1949 NIT Championship as a "National Championship" on their website, which is technically correct, and something they certainly have the right to do, I don't believe anyone in 1949 (including USF) was claiming that winning the NIT was equivalent to winning THE National Championship. Do you have a reference from that time where USF claims to be National Champions?

At least from what I can tell from researching that time period, even during the era when the NIT was competitive with the NCAA field (which certainly includes 1949), it was generally acknowledged that the winner of the NCAA tournament was THE National Champion. The only hint of any debate was some discussion in relation to the Red Cross Games which were held during World War II and were a charity game held between the NCAA and NIT champions. (The NCAA, BTW, won all of those games.)

FWIW, I think that people today read about the NIT being more 'highly regarded' and 'more prestigious' as you say and assume that this goes directly to the stature of the winner of the tournament as compared to the NCAA. But again, I haven't really found that to be the case.

Rather when people refer to the NIT being more 'prestigious', it generally refers to the fact that the NIT typically paid a larger purse and at least until 1943 when the NCAA moved its championship to Madison Square Garden, the NIT was considered a bigger attraction to some teams because it was held in New York City (as opposed to the NCAA which was held in more mundane settings).

I think what has happened is that due to the recent eclipsing of the NCAA over the NIT over the past 50+ years, there's a movement to recognize that at one time the NIT was an extremely strong tournament in its own right. (which it certainly was). But in doing so, I think these same people who want to recognize the historical significance of the NIT go overboard and now try to say that the NIT tournament was better regarded (or that it's champion was considered more highly) than the NCAA tournament, which I don't think is justified by the evidence of the time.

As to your question in relation to 1949, certainly the fact that a number of top teams chose to participate in the NIT rather than the NCAA does make it less competitive than it would have been without the NIT. But again, from what I've seen, it was generally recognized that whoever won the NCAA tournament was considered THE National Champion (That's certainly true now because the NCAA has gone on to become the preeminent authority, but I assert that was also true at the time.), and something that the schools recognized at the time.

In particular below was the respective NCAA and NIT fields for 1949:

1949 - NCAA Field

#1 Kentucky *
#2 Oklahoma A&M
#4 Illinois
Yale
Villanova
Wyoming
Oregon State
Arkansas

1949 - NIT Field

#1 Kentucky
#3 St. Louis
#5 Western Kentucky
#7 Bradley
#8 San Francisco *
#10 Bowling Green
St. Johns
Manhattan
NYU
Loyola (IL)
CCNY
Utah

You really need to go back and look at what went into the various decisions of the different NCAA districts in terms of how they came about with their invitations, and you need to look at the motivations behind the schools and what went into their decision to accept an invite from the NCAA or NIT.

For example #5 Western Kentucky was in the same NCAA district as UK and thus would not have received an NCAA invite, same is probably true with #7 Bradley and #10 Bowling Green with respect to #4 Illinois.

Why for example Oregon State received an NCAA invite and what led San Francisco to the NIT (i.e. whether they received an NCAA invite and chose to turn it down or not), again one would need to look at the specific details.

The NIT in this case had a larger field (that would soon change) and was not bound by geography (the NIT typically had a strong Metro NYC presence, which is expected given that it was run by local NYC schools.)

 

[JPScott]

1949 - NIT Field

#1 Kentucky
#3 St. Louis
#5 Western Kentucky
#7 Bradley
#8 San Francisco *
#10 Bowling Green
St. Johns
Manhattan
NYU
Loyola (IL)
CCNY
Utah

Just to follow up on this. I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com which should have more information, but I did search Google NewsArchive and found an article which provides some additional detail about how the NIT field came together.

Link to Article in Toledo Blade 4-MAR-1949

According to the article, St. Louis, Kentucky, Bradley and Western Kentucky had already accepted NIT bids prior to Utah accepting a bid. It was said that local teams CCNY and Manhattan would also be added to the field and then goes on to say that San Francisco OR Bowling Green were in the running for the final berth.

Looking at the eventual field, not sure what happened but apparently the field was expanded beyond what the article suggests, because not only were both San Francisco AND Bowling Green added, but St. John's, NYU and Loyola (IL) were also added as well. So instead of an 8-team field they ended up with a 12-team field.

 

[LeonThe Camel]

There is still obviously debate about what constitutes a national championship in college basketball.

No there isn't. You either win a national tournament or you are out of the conversation.
Titles began in 1937 with NAIA, the 1938 with NIT then 1939 with the NCAA. Voting for a championship should never be considered when a tournament is an available measuring stick.
That being said, the best team does not always win.

 

[MJWilliamson]

Actually there is some dispute. For a while there was a choice between the NIT and the NCAAs. Often some of the best teams choose the NIT. As late as 1970 Al Maguire and Marquette chose the NIT over the NCAAs. No one argues that Alabama had a program competitive to Yale prior to the 1920s, and it is just a dispute over who is making the determination.

My point though is that timing matters and recency has some value on perception.

Hmmm...the NCs that basketball teams claim, there is no dispute over the number. UCLA has the most. UK has the second most. And so on down the line. No one disputes those numbers.

 

[Jkwo]

Completely agree. And if the number of championships is relatively the same, then the other factors must be considered. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand those that say a team with relatively few NCs can be ranked higher than any team with a lot of them.

The terms, "relatively few" and "a lot of them" is a subjective term to be sure. But if one team has three to four more NCs than another, the one with the most is always a more accomplished team than the one with fewer, no matter what other measures are considered.

Bro, UCLA is not number 1. Get out of here with that sneaky/implicit illogic.

 

[JPScott]

There is still obviously debate about what constitutes a national championship in college basketball. Many schools, including 14 different power conference schools, currently claim national championships from an organization besides the NCAA. The claims range from AAU tournament titles to an American Legion Bowl Game to Helms titles. I don't think it's worth arguing about whether they count. It's pretty obvious most Kentucky fans don't think they do. But it does bring up another point that is often ignored in these debates, and that's any result before 1939.

This is a bogus argument IMO. There may be some schools claiming a pre-NCAA tournament national championship but absolutely none of them are universally recognized, nor should they be.

My counter-argument is that regardless what some overeager Sports Information Director or fan of some school desperate to demonstrate past glory wants to claim today, even the teams in the early part of the century recognized that much of what they earned (if they were even aware they won anything at the time) was virtually unprovable. That's why even in the cases where the term "national champion" was mentioned, it generally was accompanied with the word "mythical".

There were indeed some scattered attempts at determining a national champion, or at least there were tournaments with national representation prior to the late 30's but they all had issues. Often it wasn't necessarily representative of the top teams in the nation. There was a National AAU tournament which some collegiate teams won but again it wasn't necessarily against collegiate competition, and if it was, wasn't representative of all top teams.

In the case of Helms, there literally was no Helms title prior to 1942, because they had not been determined yet. In other words all the 'so-called' Helms 'champions' prior to 1939 were all retroactive in nature. It's hard to argue that a 'national championship' is valid if the players on the team weren't even aware of it until sometimes decades later (if ever, since from all indications Helms' titles weren't exactly embraced when they were released, oftentimes they were viewed as an interesting curiosity.)

I discuss the Helms, BTW, in detail in the following page:

The Facts Behind the Helms Trophy

(this page also gives some historical background on the formation of national tournaments)

The Helms was a nice exercise in remembering and honoring past teams, many which probably missed being recognized the first time, but at the end of the day it was simply an opinion of one man (Bill Schroeder).

People today could research and come up with their own rankings of the top teams of the past if they want, and some have. For example you mention Kansas in 1922 and 1923 being recognized for the Helms. Did you know that Premo-Porretta have determined that 16-1 Missouri was the strongest team in 1922? Are you willing to accept their findings as well as you accept Schroeder's? At the end of the day it's just a personal opinion. Hardly the basis for a serious claim to a national championship.

 

[Bkocats]

@JPScott is my hero
that is all