Top 7 Programs Vs Each Other: UK The Best, UL The Worst, Kansas #6

[dlh331]

All time, the top 7 programs by both ESPN and the old Street and Smith methodologies are UK, UNC, UCLA, Duke, Kansas, UL, and Indiana. Based on their success versus each other a reverse ranking:

#7 Louisville is 42-81 for 34.1%
15-33 vs UK
4-11 vs UNC
7-15 vs UCLA
4-6 vs Duke
5-6 vs Kansas
7-10 vs Indiana

Losing record versus all 6.....very fitting for that program

#6 Kansas is 33-57 for 41.3%
6-22 vs UK
5-6 vs UNC
7-10 vs UCLA
3-7 vs Duke
6-7 vs Indiana
6-5 vs Louisville

Losing record versus everyone except Louisville

Darryl

 

[dlh331]

#5 Duke is 143-160 for 47.2%
9-11 vs UK
107-133 vs UNC
10-6 vs UCLA
7-3 vs Kansas
4-3 vs Indiana
6-4 vs Louisville

Losing records vs UK and UNC

#4 Indiana is 58-60 for 49.2%
24-32 vs UK
8-5 vs UNC
6-6 vs UCLA
3-4 vs Duke
7-6 vs Kansas
10-7 vs Louisville

Losing record vs UK, and Duke. Tied with UCLA

Darryl

 

[Doctor-J]

#5 Duke is 143-160 for 47.2%
9-11 vs UK
107-133 vs UNC
10-6 vs UCLA
7-3 vs Kansas
4-3 vs Indiana
6-4 vs Louisville

Losing records vs UK and UNC

#4 Indiana is 58-60 for 49.2%
24-32 vs UK
8-5 vs UNC
6-6 vs UCLA
3-4 vs Duke
7-6 vs Kansas
10-7 vs Louisville

Losing record vs UK, UNC, and Duke. Tied with UCLA

Darryl

You say IU has a losing record against UNC but also say they are 8-5 against them. Which is correct?

 

[dlh331]

#3 UCLA is 44-44 for 50%

4-7 vs UK
3-7 vs UNC
6-10 vs Duke
10-7 vs Kansas
6-6 vs Indiana
15-7 vs Louisville

Losing record vs the top 3

#2 UNC is 185-141 for 56.7%

23-14 vs UK
7-3 vs UCLA
133-107 vs Duke
6-5 vs Kansas
5-8 vs Indiana
11-4 vs UL

Winning records vs all except Indiana

Darryl

 

[dlh331]

#1 Kentucky is 119-81 for 59.5%

14-23 vs UNC
7-4 vs UCLA
11-9 vs Duke
22-6 vs Kansas
32-24 vs Indiana
33-15 vs UL

By far the most non-conference games versus the other elite programs. Losing record versus only UNC.

Darryl

 

[dlh331]

You say IU has a losing record against UNC but also say they are 8-5 against them. Which is correct?

Thanks, I fixed it. Typing in a hurry.....

Darryl

 

[TUL]

The Duke/UNC numbers are just SO inflated by being in the same conference. Wow.

Without UNC in the equation, Duke is 36-24, so 60 percent, with a losing record to UK.

Without Duke in the equation, UNC is 52-34, so 60 percent, with a losing record still to Indiana.

Thanks for the work, those numbers are always interesting!

 

[kybassfan]

Great work pulling out those numbers. I only have one comment to offer.

I'm not sure that the Institution of North Carolina should be included. Given INCs infamous record of academic deception, difficulty with accreditation, multi-decade history of bogus classes and complete and utter lack of contrition for these heinous infractions, it is my opinion that they lack the standing to be mentioned with those other programs.

 

[michaeluk26]

Great work OP, as usual.

 

[Mojocat]

Louisville is Triple-A, not the majors, in baseball and college basketball.

There will be six Elite college basketball programs until the consensus builds to drop Indiana (it's almost there. A few more years...) Then there will be five...

You know, that's the conventional view - that there are 6 Elite programs - and I felt that way for decades. No longer, I've changed my mind. There are 4 superpowers in the sport: UK, UNC, KU and Duke. UCLA and IU were elite so long ago that it's a distant memory, a fact in the record books but in no one's perception. Yale and Vandy were once national powers in football.....

 

[MdWIldcat55]

You know, that's the conventional view - that there are 6 Elite programs - and I felt that way for decades. No longer, I've changed my mind. There are 4 superpowers in the sport: UK, UNC, KU and Duke. UCLA and IU were elite so long ago that it's a distant memory, a fact in the record books but in no one's perception. Yale and Vandy were once national powers in football.....

I've felt like Indiana should be cut from the Elite list for some time. UCLA is a bit more complicated. The titles can't be denied. And fairly recently UCLA made a run of Final Four appearances.

As for Indiana -- It is significantly behind the other 'Elites' in important categories -- For example, half as many Final Fours as UK, UNC, UCLA and Duke (and fewer than Ohio State and Michigan State) about 400 fewer wins than UK and KU, virtually no presence at the topof the sport for nearly a quarter century. The three titles between 76-87 keep IU's tenuous claim alive. But UConn has had a modern run to eclipse that, and no one is anointing the Huskies as equal to UK, UNC, Duke, etc.

 

[Montana81]

Id prefer to just move the UNC game to a neutral site permanently. I think that's our only chance to catch them because we haven't gotten a fair whistle in Chapel Hill in ages.

Unless the NCAA miraculously grows a spine and some ethics in the next few years and hammers them as they should.

 

[crawfords corner]

Do you have the UCONN numbers available?

 

[KMKAT]

I see when putting UNC aside, Duke has a TOTAL of 60 games vs. this list.
It has taken these early season tournaments for them to play anyone.

Great list and I always said before I leave this earth I'd like us to right the ship against UNC.
The NCAA could correct a few of those if they governed like they were supposed to.

 

[mikbrenhum]

The Duke/UNC numbers are just SO inflated by being in the same conference. Wow.

Without UNC in the equation, Duke is 36-24, so 60 percent, with a losing record to UK.

Without Duke in the equation, UNC is 52-34, so 60 percent, with a losing record still to Indiana.

Thanks for the work, those numbers are always interesting!

I noticed exactly the same thing. Subtracting those conference games, (or just counting OOC games), the number of games played for each school against the other top six are: UK - 210, Lou - 123, Ind - 118, UCLA - 88, UNC - 86, and last, Duke - 63. Looks like the Cats aren't afraid of playing the top teams, but Duke?

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Just goes to show....the theory that the Cats have racked up the most all-time wins by playing in a weak conference is complete bullshit.

 

[TUL]

Not sure that is what it shows... That's a small percentage of total overall games.

 

[At least 23 Ws in 22 of past 35 seasons_UK 1980-81]

I pretty much agree with the OP's rankings, based on head-to-head results. Even using a COMPLETELY different methodolgy yields similar results.

Warning: The following methodology will completely shock you, but give me a chance:

I don't think that ANY college basketball PROGRAM or FAN should count (take seriously) ANY NCAA TOURNAMENT results prior to the 1975 NCAA Tournament.

Why not?

1948: winner won only 3 games (only 8 teams in tourney = horribly uncompetitive); NIT had 8 teams also

1949: the same as '48: 3 games (8 teams); NIT 12 teams

(It only took one tourney win to "earn" an NCAA Final Four accolade.)

1951: winner won 4 games (16 teams); NIT 12 teams
1958: 4 games (24 teams); NIT 12 teams

As late as 1970, coaches of top-10 teams were refusing to accept NCAA Tourney invitations, because they considered the NIT the better, more competitive tourney (in hopes of finding a true champion).

In 1974, the NCAA set-up a bogus tourney, just to create pressure to hopefully later consolidate the NIT and NCAA tourneys.

From Wikipedia:

"The National Commissioners Invitational Tournament was an eight team postseason college men's basketball tournament run by the NCAA. It was introduced in 1974 as the Collegiate Commissioners Association Tournament. It was created because the NCAA wanted to "kill" the NIT. It was a collection of teams that came in second in their conferences, as in 1974 the NCAA Tournament only invited conference champions. The 1975 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament expanded to include at-large teams."

1975 NCAA Tourney (quoted from Wikipedia):

• "This was also the first NCAA tournament to allow (or indeed, have room for) more than one team per conference. Previously, only one team from each conference was allowed. This change was response to a number of factors:
  • The 1971 USC Trojans were ranked #2 with their only two losses being to conference rival and #1 ranked UCLA, but were excluded from the 1971 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament due to being second place in the conference to #1 UCLA.
  • The 1974 ACC tournament final pitted two of the 3 best teams in the country in NC Stateand Maryland.[1]
  • In 1974, the Collegiate Commissioners' Association held a tournament in St. Louis, Missouri. They invited the second-place teams from eight conferences to participate.
  • The new selection criteria threatened to exclude Northeastern teams, which did not belong to conferences.

Quote from All-American basketball star, Bill Bradley:

"In the 1940's, when the NCAA tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by the Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the NCAA tournament. ”

(Note: I've heard many people say that same thing -- about the NCAA Tourney not being very decisive about who the best team was, not only in the 30s and 40s, but all the way up through the 1970s.)

We all know how close conference races are, and how, often, a conference's 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams are capable of making an Elite Eight or Final Four. So, if you want to decide a true champion, then a large talent pool is needed. (Who's the best? How do we find out?)

Therefore, I consider only post-1974 NCAA Championships, Final Fours and Elite Eights as legitimate.

Legit Final Fours (LFFs):

Duke: 13
Unc: 12
Uk: 11
KU: 8
Louisville: 8
Mich. St.: 8
Indiana: 5
UCONN: 4
Arizona: 4

Legit Elite Eights:

UK: 20
UNC: 19
Duke: 16
KU: 12
Louisville: 12
Mich. St: 11
Arizona: 11
Uconn: 10
UCLA: 10
Indiana: 8

LTE 1st or 2nd = Number of times each program has placed either 1st or 2nd (runner-up) during "Legitimate [NCAA] Tourney Era" (LTE):

DUKE: 10
UK: 7
UNC: 6
KU: 5
Uconn: 4
Indiana: 4
Louisville: 3
Mich St: 3
UCLA: 3 officially (plus one, vacated, 'runner-up' finish)
Arizona: 2

All-Time Wins:

Kentucky: 2178
Kansas: 2153
North Carolina: 2140
Duke: 2062
Temple
Syracuse
Ucla: 1803
St John's:1795
Notre Dame
Indiana: 1756
Louisville: 1755

Win%:

UK 76.4
Unc: 73.6
Kansas: 72.2
Duke: 70.7
Ucla: 69.2
Lou: 66.5

Legit National Titles (post-1974):

Duke: 5
Uconn: 4
Unc: 4
UK: 4
Indiana: 3
Louisville: 3
Kansas: 2
Ucla: 2

Another consideration (but 'shakey ground', due to varying levels of competition):

All-Time Reg-Season Conference championships (in whatever conferences a particular team has been a member of):

Kansas: 58

(Note on Kansas: Although lower in national titles than other major 'Blueblood' programs, KU's been runner-up six times and to multiple Final Fours and Elite Eights. Many winning coaches are connected to KU or, at least, to the state of Kansas [Dean Smith, Bill Guthrage, Roy Williams, Larry Brown, Phog Allen, John McClendon, Dutch Lonborn and Tex Winter [[of KSU]]] either as players or "coaches"** [**in some capacity, like UK's John Calipari and John Robic]. Three UK coaches were born in Kansas [Rupp, Sutton and Brummage] and account for a little under half of UK's all-time wins, and several other UK men's basketball coaches [Wendt, Tuttle, Park and Tigert], at some point in their lives, lived either in Kansas or in KC, MO. [a very short drive from KU]. The game's inventor coached there and arguably the game's most dominant player played there, as did the women's collegiate record-holder for points scored in a career. KU currently has some of the top facilities in the country ["loudest"&"best-ranked" arena -- fewest home losses in 30+ seasons, recent practice facility, renovated locker rooms, brand-new dorms, a nine-year-old Hall of Athletics, plus a 2nd museum under construction].)

Just FYI: Links to Kansas' new facilities:

12 photos of new AllenFH museum: http://www.gouldevans.com/portfolio/ku-debruce-center

4 photos of new dorms: http://m.kansan.com/sports/column-n...24450fa950.html?mode=jqm_gal#&ui-state=dialog

Article with good photos of various, brand-new KU dorms and plans for others (See pics of McCarthy, Oswald and Self Halls):
http://m.ljworld.com/news/2015/aug/...treet-central-district-driv/?templates=mobile

Ummm, just some unnecessary photos of KU's campus. Just curious. Though I've never been there, I've heard it's hilly. Yes. You can tell that's true by how, a lot of times, the treelines behind buildings are below the building roofs:

We'll start with this one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...89/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...91/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

http://archives.kansan.com/media/2013/02/130221_snowday_ewittler003.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...29/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidk033/4825058084 (campus hotel & nightclub, on a hill)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/universityofkansas/15872176140

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonmotphotos/2704431052/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonmotphotos/2704430886

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31519594@N04/3407483538

http://laurachaney.featuredwebsite.com/lawrence-community.asp

http://m.ljworld.com/photos/2004/sep/17/50699/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...53/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/universityofkansas/4176332623

http://doleinstitute.org/visit/about/architecture/

Annnnnyway, back to..

Reg.-season conference titles, continued:

Kentucky: 48
Ucla: 37
Unc: 36
Arizona: 27
Louisville: 23
Duke: 22
Indiana: 21




So, in conclusion, different methodology, yes, but fact-based and basically the same results as the OP (which used head-to-head competition, all-time wins and win %) plus I think you need to also factor-in KU's stong supplementals (history, consistency, continued aggressiveness and "intangibles") which place it somewhere ahead of some of the other top programs.

Over the past-30 seasons, # of homecourt losses:

UNC: 65
UK: 50
Duke: 39
KU: 28


Over the past-six seasons (during CoachCal's tenure), # of 'true road-game' losses at:

UNC: 28
UK: 23
Duke: 21
KU: 20


I would place KU fourth, all-time -- maybe 5th. (Just my opinion.)


Go Cats!!

UK is #1 for MANY reasons!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

I see when putting UNC aside, Duke has a TOTAL of 60 games vs. this list.
It has taken these early season tournaments for them to play anyone.

Great list and I always said before I leave this earth I'd like us to right the ship against UNC.
The NCAA could correct a few of those if they governed like they were supposed to.

Good point. Even if you take out the opponent we've played the most, we still have 144 games to Duke's 60 when they take away the opponent they've played the most due to being in the same conference.

 

[At least 23 Ws in 22 of past 35 seasons_UK 1980-81]

Ha! I guess I'm a little surprised no one has yet commented on my post above -- the one which shows various reasons why all the pre-1975 Tourney championships are kind of...for lack of a better word... "bogus" (especially the ones prior to 1951, when there were only 8 teams invited [weak] -- when only one win put you in the Final Four).

I'm also surprised there were no comments on my link to the artistic rendering of KU's new DeBruce Center basketball museum (or their McCarthy Hall rederings). Ha! I figured somebody here would at least say SOMEthing (!), since we all talk a lot about other programs.

It's NOT like the new DeBruce & McCarthy (at KU) WON'T affect us in the least; it's a competitive move for the very best recruits. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I personally love our (UK's) facilities set-up. It should have longevity and compete very well.

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Not sure that is what it shows... That's a small percentage of total overall games.

There's a theory among UK haters that the Cats only have the most wins ever because of playing in the SEC. But that theory ignores the fact that UK has a winning record against every elite program but unc, as well as roughly 95% of the non-conference teams we've played multiple games against. Not sure I can spell it out any clearer.

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Ha! I guess I'm a little surprised no one has yet commented on my post above -- the one which shows various reasons why all the pre-1975 Tourney championships are kind of...for lack of a better word... "bogus" (especially the ones prior to 1951, when there were only 8 teams invited [weak] -- when only one win put you in the Final Four).

I'm also surprised there were no comments on my link to the artistic rendering of KU's new DeBruce Center basketball museum (or their McCarthy Hall rederings). Ha! I figured somebody here would at least say SOMEthing (!), since we all talk a lot about other programs.

It's NOT like the new DeBruce & McCarthy (at KU) WON'T affect us in the least; it's a competitive move for the very best recruits. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I personally love our (UK's) facilities set-up. It should have longevity and compete very well.

probably no comments because your post looks long and boring. Even your username is long and boring. And you lose credibility as soon as you start saying pre-1975 tourney wins were bogus. It was harder to make the tournament back then.

 

[UK till Death]

I pretty much agree with the OP's rankings, based on head-to-head results. Even using a COMPLETELY different methodolgy yields similar results.

Warning: The following methodology will completely shock you, but give me a chance:

I don't think that ANY college basketball PROGRAM or FAN should count (take seriously) ANY NCAA TOURNAMENT results prior to the 1975 NCAA Tournament.

Why not?

1948: winner won only 3 games (only 8 teams in tourney = horribly uncompetitive); NIT had 8 teams also

1949: the same as '48: 3 games (8 teams); NIT 12 teams

(It only took one tourney win to "earn" an NCAA Final Four accolade.)

1951: winner won 4 games (16 teams); NIT 12 teams
1958: 4 games (24 teams); NIT 12 teams

As late as 1970, coaches of top-10 teams were refusing to accept NCAA Tourney invitations, because they considered the NIT the better, more competitive tourney (in hopes of finding a true champion).

In 1974, the NCAA set-up a bogus tourney, just to create pressure to hopefully later consolidate the NIT and NCAA tourneys.

From Wikipedia:

"The National Commissioners Invitational Tournament was an eight team postseason college men's basketball tournament run by the NCAA. It was introduced in 1974 as the Collegiate Commissioners Association Tournament. It was created because the NCAA wanted to "kill" the NIT. It was a collection of teams that came in second in their conferences, as in 1974 the NCAA Tournament only invited conference champions. The 1975 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament expanded to include at-large teams."

1975 NCAA Tourney (quoted from Wikipedia):

• "This was also the first NCAA tournament to allow (or indeed, have room for) more than one team per conference. Previously, only one team from each conference was allowed. This change was response to a number of factors:
  • The 1971 USC Trojans were ranked #2 with their only two losses being to conference rival and #1 ranked UCLA, but were excluded from the 1971 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament due to being second place in the conference to #1 UCLA.
  • The 1974 ACC tournament final pitted two of the 3 best teams in the country in NC Stateand Maryland.[1]
  • In 1974, the Collegiate Commissioners' Association held a tournament in St. Louis, Missouri. They invited the second-place teams from eight conferences to participate.
  • The new selection criteria threatened to exclude Northeastern teams, which did not belong to conferences.

Quote from All-American basketball star, Bill Bradley:

"In the 1940's, when the NCAA tournament was less than 10 years old, the National Invitation Tournament, a saturnalia held in New York at Madison Square Garden by the Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, was the most glamorous of the post-season tournaments and generally had the better teams. The winner of the National Invitation Tournament was regarded as more of a national champion than the actual, titular, national champion, or winner of the NCAA tournament. ”

(Note: I've heard many people say that same thing -- about the NCAA Tourney not being very decisive about who the best team was, not only in the 30s and 40s, but all the way up through the 1970s.)

We all know how close conference races are, and how, often, a conference's 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams are capable of making an Elite Eight or Final Four. So, if you want to decide a true champion, then a large talent pool is needed. (Who's the best? How do we find out?)

Therefore, I consider only post-1974 NCAA Championships, Final Fours and Elite Eights as legitimate.

Legit Final Fours (LFFs):

Duke: 13
Unc: 12
Uk: 11
KU: 8
Louisville: 8
Mich. St.: 8
Indiana: 5
UCONN: 4
Arizona: 4

Legit Elite Eights:

UK: 20
UNC: 19
Duke: 16
KU: 12
Louisville: 12
Mich. St: 11
Arizona: 11
Uconn: 10
UCLA: 10
Indiana: 8

LTE 1st or 2nd = Number of times each program has placed either 1st or 2nd (runner-up) during "Legitimate [NCAA] Tourney Era" (LTE):

DUKE: 10
UK: 7
UNC: 6
KU: 5
Uconn: 4
Indiana: 4
Louisville: 3
Mich St: 3
UCLA: 3 officially (plus one, vacated, 'runner-up' finish)
Arizona: 2

All-Time Wins:

Kentucky: 2178
Kansas: 2153
North Carolina: 2140
Duke: 2062
Temple
Syracuse
Ucla: 1803
St John's:1795
Notre Dame
Indiana: 1756
Louisville: 1755

Win%:

UK 76.4
Unc: 73.6
Kansas: 72.2
Duke: 70.7
Ucla: 69.2
Lou: 66.5

Legit National Titles (post-1974):

Duke: 5
Uconn: 4
Unc: 4
UK: 4
Indiana: 3
Louisville: 3
Kansas: 2
Ucla: 2

Another consideration, somewhat shakier, due to varying levels of competition:

All-Time Reg-Season Conference championships (in whatever conferences a particular team has been a member of):

Kansas: 58

(Note on Kansas: Although lower in national titles than other major 'Blueblood' programs, KU's been runner-up six times and to multiple Final Fours and Elite Eights. Many winning coaches are connected to KU or, at least, to the state of Kansas [Dean Smith, Bill Guthrage, Roy Williams, Larry Brown, Phog Allen, John McClendon, Dutch Lonborn and Tex Winter [[of KSU]]] either as players or "coaches"** [**in some capacity, like UK's John Calipari and John Robic]. Three UK coaches were born in Kansas [Rupp, Sutton and Brummage] and account for a little under half of UK's all-time wins, and several other UK men's basketball coaches [Wendt, Tuttle, Park and Tigert], at some point in their lives, lived either in Kansas or in KC, MO. [a very short drive from KU]. The game's inventor coached there and arguably the game's most dominant player played there, as did the women's collegiate record-holder for points scored in a career. KU currently has some of the top facilities in the country ["loudest"&"best-ranked" arena -- fewest home losses in 30+ seasons, recent practice facility, renovated locker rooms, brand-new dorms, a nine-year-old Hall of Athletics, plus a 2nd museum under construction].)

Just FYI: Links to Kansas' new facilities:

12 photos of new AllenFH museum: http://www.gouldevans.com/portfolio/ku-debruce-center

4 photos of new dorms: http://m.kansan.com/sports/column-n...24450fa950.html?mode=jqm_gal#&ui-state=dialog

Article with good photos of various, brand-new KU dorms and plans for others (See pics of McCarthy, Oswald and Self Halls):
http://m.ljworld.com/news/2015/aug/...treet-central-district-driv/?templates=mobile

Ummm, just some unnecessary photos of KU's campus. Just curious. Though I've never been there, I've heard it's hilly. Yes. You can tell that's true by how, a lot of times, the treelines behind buildings are below the building roofs:

We'll start with this one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...89/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...91/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

http://archives.kansan.com/media/2013/02/130221_snowday_ewittler003.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...29/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidk033/4825058084 (campus hotel & nightclub, on a hill)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/universityofkansas/15872176140

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonmotphotos/2704431052/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonmotphotos/2704430886

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31519594@N04/3407483538

http://laurachaney.featuredwebsite.com/lawrence-community.asp

http://m.ljworld.com/photos/2004/sep/17/50699/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/unive...53/in/gallery-58269634@N06-72157625814702100/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/universityofkansas/4176332623

http://doleinstitute.org/visit/about/architecture/

Annnnnyway, back to..

Reg.-season conference titles, continued:

Kentucky: 48
Ucla: 37
Unc: 36
Arizona: 27
Louisville: 23
Duke: 22
Indiana: 21




So, in conclusion, different methodology, yes, but fact-based and basically the same results as the OP (which used head-to-head competition, all-time wins and win %) plus I think you need to also factor-in KU's stong supplementals (history, consistency, continued aggressiveness and "intangibles") which place it somewhere ahead of some of the other top programs. I would place KU fourth -- maybe 5th. (Just my opinion.)


Go Cats!!

UK is #1 for MANY reasons!!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

And nobody actually read all that shi*.

 

[UK till Death]

Oh yeah, nobody thinks you're actually a UK fan as you slobber on some lame Choke Hawk museum to celebrate ncaa tournament mediocrity.

 

[Cerastes]

I don't think UL is a top 7 program, first of all.

 

[brianpoe]

Ha! I guess I'm a little surprised no one has yet commented on my post above -- the one which shows various reasons why all the pre-1975 Tourney championships are kind of...for lack of a better word... "bogus" (especially the ones prior to 1951, when there were only 8 teams invited [weak] -- when only one win put you in the Final Four).

I'm also surprised there were no comments on my link to the artistic rendering of KU's new DeBruce Center basketball museum (or their McCarthy Hall rederings). Ha! I figured somebody here would at least say SOMEthing (!), since we all talk a lot about other programs.

It's NOT like the new DeBruce & McCarthy (at KU) WON'T affect us in the least; it's a competitive move for the very best recruits. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I personally love our (UK's) facilities set-up. It should have longevity and compete very well.

We don't have civil discourse with liars and decievers. I read your POS post and the entire time I was thinking... wait for it...wait for it.....wait for it.. BAM there it is.... Kansas is great!

And you use that POS conference crap?

You are joke. You make KU fans look like a joke. If I were on KU's board and one of our fans were to impersonate as poorly as you, I would call them out.

 

[At least 23 Ws in 22 of past 35 seasons_UK 1980-81]

OK, so what I wrote was too "long", too "boring" and the content was "shi*".

Ok.

GOT it


Somehow I don't believe ya (except for the "long" part -- you might as well not even BEGIN THIS post!), but that sure was a deep, fact-based argument, fellas!
Good job!
I guess, thanks (at least) for having the guts to post your opinions.

'Guess I shouldn't have spent a whole day pouring through all those pesky facts & quotes by people who were there. Ha! Who cares 'bout historical accuracy?

Up front, I admitted that the word "bogus" (in describing pre-1975 tourneys) was a BIT harsh, but I really don't know what else you can call it --when programs (nationwide) continually celebrate winning little "tournaments" (where only one or two wins gave you "Final Four" status). These programs act as though they truly achieved "#1" by competing against a majority of the best teams. Often, the tournament was really easy for one or two teams, because so many conference winners (tourney opponents) were weak.

The problem stated another way: If, say, you have ten teams in a conference and four are good and one barely wins conference (maybe because a much more talented team had an off night and lost to a lesser team) and so the other three "lesser" teams have to stay home, and you hold a tournament with only the 16 "best" (and some of the winners of those bad conferences suck and have no chance in the tourney), yet, nationwide, the tourney leaves out (3x16conferences=) 48 also-good teams (from all over), then that tourney may be completely leaving out dozens of title-potential 2nd, 3rd, & 4th-place conference (uninvited) teams = unfair = not a true champ.

I guess the old tournament committees had to start somewhere and take baby steps forward, so I'll look at it as just that: a small step in the right direction. (But sincerely, "championship" proclamations back then are BS by today's standards.)

Fact: for over 30 years, top-ranked teams often didn't choose to even GO to the NCAA or NIT tourneys.

The coaches and ADs were probably like, "With having been invited to these two, too-small, competing national tournaments, finding a true national champ won't be possible, so our options are a) 'why bother going?/don't go' or b) 'let's go accept one of the invitations; let's 'lace 'em up', get a little press & money, have fun, and let the politics of the "who's #1?" chips fall where they may.'"

That's what usually happened.

As I said (but I'll repeat it simpler, since some don't get it), many of the country's best teams were those who barely didn't win their conferences, but who kept getting better and better and who were likely, by season's end, just as good or better than the conference champs, yet they weren't invited to post-season tournaments, where they would've probably made a very deep run, because the automatic bids from other, bad, conferences sucked.

Important point: All teams should be graded, not by how bad they might be at the beginning or middle of a season, but by how good they are, overall, throughout a season, especially at the end of the season -- graded by how much they grow, and by their potential to still become 'the best'. They'll never show their growth and champ potential if they're never given the chance.

Put in terms of schoolwork: that's like saying, "If a 'lesser student', at mid-term exams, didn't get as high a score as the top student, then the lesser student shouldn't be given the opportunity to participate in the final, because we don't think he can study and improve into an "A student" in only two weeks. (Well what kind of a student WAS he, at mid-term?) And, looking back at his mid-term exam grade...oh wait!...OMG...yes! He DID get an A (after all)!!!!... My bad! But ...I guess it was *just* a 94, whereas Johnny (over here) got a 95, so ...Johnny's the ONLY one who'll get to take the national test (even though Johnny admitted he guessed on 3 answers but got them correct -- whereas '94 boy' knew how to do all of the problems -- he just made two, simple subtraction errors), and Johnny will probably be competing against some of the "not so smarts" who were the best from their dumb little schools (conferences) (in the tourney)...and, oh well, I guess he'll only be competing against 15 other boys anyway (for "Nation's Best Student"). That all sounds fair. The "best" student in the nation will be crowned!

The Tourney, back then, was kinda like the exclusivity we see in today's "snob organizations": exclusive, super-hard to get into, and that's precisely why they suck(ed) (in this case, the tourney systems sucked): too exclusive, too unrepresentative and unappreciative of championship potential (in the good, improving, "common" teams -- who may've barely lost and been better than most of the other teams, nation-wide).



A common argument:

"Hey! If you wanted to win a national championship back then, you should've been good enough to win your conference! The Tourney only accepted the best! It was a tougher tournament back then!"

But, in sport X, all conferences aren't created alike.



In closing, honestly, after having already given you the basics of my argument (above, several times), I think anyone who still uses the "it was a better tournament because it was harder to get into" argument is trying hard to be ignorant and has baseless pride for their program.

Hey, it goes for ALL programs just the same. Yes, it's nice that we all (each program) won some of those early "Championships", but we should also make a mental note that small & unrepresentative (in fact "exclusionary") "Final Four" and "Championship" accolades aren't real credible.

Even the way it is now definitely isn't perfect, but it's SO much better -- more consolidated and agreed upon -- than before the 1970s and, even now, there is still a logical and logistical way to invite ALL the teams and play the same number of games per season.

The problem is:

1) the useless, money-maker-only conference tournaments take-up time and resources

and

2) the NCAA heads knows that, fair or not, half the fun of -- and money in -- the NCAA Tournament is in the guessing, apprehension, unfairness and politics of "who's in" and "who's left out", and in the crazy, hand-picked, unfair seedings & match-ups.



Controversy creates interest creates money creates power creates abuse of power creates controversy. Right?

I know this was a long post, but I'm really done here. I shouldn't ever have to explain it again. I won't! LoL, But some here still won't read it and will refuse to understand it.

'Baseless Team Pride' for all early 'Champs'!!!!!

Yay!!!!!!!!!!

To the ignorant here (only to the ignorant -- 'thanks' to those of you who understand my argument): You hate me, but you know I'm right, and that's all I'll say on this subject, other than: your blindness is amusing and, please, continue to ignore and boast to all the other great teams of yester-year. You offer GRRRREAT arguments when faced with facts!!!

I promise: That's all I'll ever say on this subject, here, because, here, I guess facts aren't allowed on this subject, and that makes me a sad panda. (Wait. What???)

 

[UK till Death]

OK, so what I wrote was too "long", too "boring" and the content was "shi*".

Ok.

GOT it


Somehow I don't believe ya (except for the "long" part -- you might as well not even BEGIN THIS post!), but that sure was a deep, fact-based argument, fellas!
Good job!
I guess, thanks (at least) for having the guts to post your opinions.

'Guess I shouldn't have spent a whole day pouring through all those pesky facts & quotes by people who were there. Ha! Who cares 'bout historical accuracy?

Up front, I admitted that the word "bogus" (in describing pre-1975 tourneys) was a BIT harsh, but I really don't know what else you can call it --when programs (nationwide) continually celebrate winning little "tournaments" (where only one or two wins gave you "Final Four" status). These programs act as though they truly achieved "#1" by competing against a majority of the best teams. Often, the tournament was really easy for one or two teams, because so many conference winners (tourney opponents) were weak.

The problem stated another way: If, say, you have ten teams in a conference and four are good and one barely wins conference (maybe because a much more talented team had an off night and lost to a lesser team) and so the other three "lesser" teams have to stay home, and you hold a tournament with only the 16 "best" (and some of the winners of those bad conferences suck and have no chance in the tourney), yet, nationwide, the tourney leaves out (3x16conferences=) 48 also-good teams (from all over), then that tourney may be completely leaving out dozens of title-potential 2nd, 3rd, & 4th-place conference (uninvited) teams = unfair = not a true champ.

I guess the old tournament committees had to start somewhere and take baby steps forward, so I'll look at it as just that: a small step in the right direction. (But sincerely, "championship" proclamations back then are BS by today's standards.)

Fact: for over 30 years, top-ranked teams often didn't choose to even GO to the NCAA or NIT tourneys.

The coaches and ADs were probably like, "With having been invited to these two, too-small, competing national tournaments, finding a true national champ won't be possible, so our options are a) 'why bother going?/don't go' or b) 'let's go accept one of the invitations; let's 'lace 'em up', get a little press & money, have fun, and let the politics of the "who's #1?" chips fall where they may.'"

That's what usually happened.

As I said (but I'll repeat it simpler, since some don't get it), many of the country's best teams were those who barely didn't win their conferences, but who kept getting better and better and who were likely, by season's end, just as good or better than the conference champs, yet they weren't invited to post-season tournaments, where they would've probably made a very deep run, because the automatic bids from other, bad, conferences sucked.

Important point: All teams should be graded, not by how bad they might be at the beginning or middle of a season, but by how good they are, overall, throughout a season, especially at the end of the season -- graded by how much they grow, and by their potential to still become 'the best'. They'll never show their growth and champ potential if they're never given the chance.

Put in terms of schoolwork: that's like saying, "If a 'lesser student', at mid-term exams, didn't get as high a score as the top student, then the lesser student shouldn't be given the opportunity to participate in the final, because we don't think he can study and improve into an "A student" in only two weeks. (Well what kind of a student WAS he, at mid-term?) And, looking back at his mid-term exam grade...oh wait!...OMG...yes! He DID get an A (after all)!!!!... My bad! But ...I guess it was *just* a 94, whereas Johnny (over here) got a 95, so ...Johnny's the ONLY one who'll get to take the national test (even though Johnny admitted he guessed on 3 answers but got them correct -- whereas '94 boy' knew how to do all of the problems -- he just made two, simple subtraction errors), and Johnny will probably be competing against some of the "not so smarts" who were the best from their dumb little schools (conferences) (in the tourney)...and, oh well, I guess he'll only be competing against 15 other boys anyway (for "Nation's Best Student"). That all sounds fair. The "best" student in the nation will be crowned!

The Tourney, back then, was kinda like the exclusivity we see in today's "snob organizations": exclusive, super-hard to get into, and that's precisely why they suck(ed) (in this case, the tourney systems sucked): too exclusive, too unrepresentative and unappreciative of championship potential (in the good, improving, "common" teams -- who may've barely lost and been better than most of the other teams, nation-wide).



A common argument:

"Hey! If you wanted to win a national championship back then, you should've been good enough to win your conference! The Tourney only accepted the best! It was a tougher tournament back then!"

But, in sport X, all conferences aren't created alike.



In closing, honestly, after having already given you the basics of my argument (above, several times), I think anyone who still uses the "it was a better tournament because it was harder to get into" argument is trying hard to be ignorant and has baseless pride for their program.

Hey, it goes for ALL programs just the same. Yes, it's nice that we all (each program) won some of those early "Championships", but we should also make a mental note that small & unrepresentative (in fact "exclusionary") "Final Four" and "Championship" accolades aren't real credible.

Even the way it is now definitely isn't perfect, but it's SO much better -- more consolidated and agreed upon -- than before the 1970s and, even now, there is still a logical and logistical way to invite ALL the teams and play the same number of games per season.

The problem is:

1) the useless, money-maker-only conference tournaments take-up time and resources

and

2) the NCAA heads knows that, fair or not, half the fun of -- and money in -- the NCAA Tournament is in the guessing, apprehension, unfairness and politics of "who's in" and "who's left out", and in the crazy, hand-picked, unfair seedings & match-ups.



Controversy creates interest creates money creates power creates abuse of power creates controversy. Right?

I know this was a long post, but I'm really done here. I shouldn't ever have to explain it again. I won't! LoL, But some here still won't read it and will refuse to understand it.

'Baseless Team Pride' for all early 'Champs'!!!!!

Yay!!!!!!!!!!

To the ignorant here (only to the ignorant -- 'thanks' to those of you who understand my argument): You hate me, but you know I'm right, and that's all I'll say on this subject, other than: your blindness is amusing and, please, continue to ignore and boast to all the other great teams of yester-year. You offer GRRRREAT arguments when faced with facts!!!

I promise: That's all I'll ever say on this subject, here, because, here, I guess facts aren't allowed on this subject, and that makes me a sad panda. (Wait. What???)

No one read this, either, choke hawk.

 

[kybassfan]

OK, so what I wrote was too "long", too "boring" and the content was "shi*".

Ok.

GOT it


Somehow I don't believe ya (except for the "long" part -- you might as well not even BEGIN THIS post!), but that sure was a deep, fact-based argument, fellas!
Good job!
I guess, thanks (at least) for having the guts to post your opinions.

'Guess I shouldn't have spent a whole day pouring through all those pesky facts & quotes by people who were there. Ha! Who cares 'bout historical accuracy?

Up front, I admitted that the word "bogus" (in describing pre-1975 tourneys) was a BIT harsh, but I really don't know what else you can call it --when programs (nationwide) continually celebrate winning little "tournaments" (where only one or two wins gave you "Final Four" status). These programs act as though they truly achieved "#1" by competing against a majority of the best teams. Often, the tournament was really easy for one or two teams, because so many conference winners (tourney opponents) were weak.

The problem stated another way: If, say, you have ten teams in a conference and four are good and one barely wins conference (maybe because a much more talented team had an off night and lost to a lesser team) and so the other three "lesser" teams have to stay home, and you hold a tournament with only the 16 "best" (and some of the winners of those bad conferences suck and have no chance in the tourney), yet, nationwide, the tourney leaves out (3x16conferences=) 48 also-good teams (from all over), then that tourney may be completely leaving out dozens of title-potential 2nd, 3rd, & 4th-place conference (uninvited) teams = unfair = not a true champ.

I guess the old tournament committees had to start somewhere and take baby steps forward, so I'll look at it as just that: a small step in the right direction. (But sincerely, "championship" proclamations back then are BS by today's standards.)

Fact: for over 30 years, top-ranked teams often didn't choose to even GO to the NCAA or NIT tourneys.

The coaches and ADs were probably like, "With having been invited to these two, too-small, competing national tournaments, finding a true national champ won't be possible, so our options are a) 'why bother going?/don't go' or b) 'let's go accept one of the invitations; let's 'lace 'em up', get a little press & money, have fun, and let the politics of the "who's #1?" chips fall where they may.'"

That's what usually happened.

As I said (but I'll repeat it simpler, since some don't get it), many of the country's best teams were those who barely didn't win their conferences, but who kept getting better and better and who were likely, by season's end, just as good or better than the conference champs, yet they weren't invited to post-season tournaments, where they would've probably made a very deep run, because the automatic bids from other, bad, conferences sucked.

Important point: All teams should be graded, not by how bad they might be at the beginning or middle of a season, but by how good they are, overall, throughout a season, especially at the end of the season -- graded by how much they grow, and by their potential to still become 'the best'. They'll never show their growth and champ potential if they're never given the chance.

Put in terms of schoolwork: that's like saying, "If a 'lesser student', at mid-term exams, didn't get as high a score as the top student, then the lesser student shouldn't be given the opportunity to participate in the final, because we don't think he can study and improve into an "A student" in only two weeks. (Well what kind of a student WAS he, at mid-term?) And, looking back at his mid-term exam grade...oh wait!...OMG...yes! He DID get an A (after all)!!!!... My bad! But ...I guess it was *just* a 94, whereas Johnny (over here) got a 95, so ...Johnny's the ONLY one who'll get to take the national test (even though Johnny admitted he guessed on 3 answers but got them correct -- whereas '94 boy' knew how to do all of the problems -- he just made two, simple subtraction errors), and Johnny will probably be competing against some of the "not so smarts" who were the best from their dumb little schools (conferences) (in the tourney)...and, oh well, I guess he'll only be competing against 15 other boys anyway (for "Nation's Best Student"). That all sounds fair. The "best" student in the nation will be crowned!

The Tourney, back then, was kinda like the exclusivity we see in today's "snob organizations": exclusive, super-hard to get into, and that's precisely why they suck(ed) (in this case, the tourney systems sucked): too exclusive, too unrepresentative and unappreciative of championship potential (in the good, improving, "common" teams -- who may've barely lost and been better than most of the other teams, nation-wide).



A common argument:

"Hey! If you wanted to win a national championship back then, you should've been good enough to win your conference! The Tourney only accepted the best! It was a tougher tournament back then!"

But, in sport X, all conferences aren't created alike.



In closing, honestly, after having already given you the basics of my argument (above, several times), I think anyone who still uses the "it was a better tournament because it was harder to get into" argument is trying hard to be ignorant and has baseless pride for their program.

Hey, it goes for ALL programs just the same. Yes, it's nice that we all (each program) won some of those early "Championships", but we should also make a mental note that small & unrepresentative (in fact "exclusionary") "Final Four" and "Championship" accolades aren't real credible.

Even the way it is now definitely isn't perfect, but it's SO much better -- more consolidated and agreed upon -- than before the 1970s and, even now, there is still a logical and logistical way to invite ALL the teams and play the same number of games per season.

The problem is:

1) the useless, money-maker-only conference tournaments take-up time and resources

and

2) the NCAA heads knows that, fair or not, half the fun of -- and money in -- the NCAA Tournament is in the guessing, apprehension, unfairness and politics of "who's in" and "who's left out", and in the crazy, hand-picked, unfair seedings & match-ups.



Controversy creates interest creates money creates power creates abuse of power creates controversy. Right?

I know this was a long post, but I'm really done here. I shouldn't ever have to explain it again. I won't! LoL, But some here still won't read it and will refuse to understand it.

'Baseless Team Pride' for all early 'Champs'!!!!!

Yay!!!!!!!!!!

To the ignorant here (only to the ignorant -- 'thanks' to those of you who understand my argument): You hate me, but you know I'm right, and that's all I'll say on this subject, other than: your blindness is amusing and, please, continue to ignore and boast to all the other great teams of yester-year. You offer GRRRREAT arguments when faced with facts!!!

I promise: That's all I'll ever say on this subject, here, because, here, I guess facts aren't allowed on this subject, and that makes me a sad panda. (Wait. What???)

Ok, I know I make some long posts and I know I ramble at times. However, I'm sorry, but that was the best example I've ever seen of literary vomit. Did you write that with one of those pfishing email generators? It was almost like it was a google translation of Cyrillic.

Seriously. Slow down. Think about what you want to say. Start with short sentences, one thought per. Maybe take a logic class. Even if you are trying to troll, you are failing to string enough coherent ideas together to draw a conclusion.

B for effort though. Lot of key strokes.

 

[TUL]

There's a theory among UK haters that the Cats only have the most wins ever because of playing in the SEC. But that theory ignores the fact that UK has a winning record against every elite program but unc, as well as roughly 95% of the non-conference teams we've played multiple games against. Not sure I can spell it out any clearer.

Right, but your games against the top six programs doesn't have any impact on that you play in the SEC, and some folks arguing it is weak.

Think of it this way; imagine you played twenty games. Five were against the top team in the nation, and you went 3-2. The rest were against a bunch of seven year olds, and you went 15-0. Someone could say "Oh, well you only have so many wins because of playing against those five year olds." Pointing out your 3-2 record against the best team in the nation doesn't discount that.

I'm not saying KY has the overall wins because the SEC is weak or not... I am just saying that your logic doesn't hold up: having a winning record against most of the top programs doesn't in turn shoot down the "you have so many total wins because you are in a weak conference" argument. It is impressive that KY has such a great record against the top programs; it is also likely they wouldn't have so many wins if they played in a stronger conference.

 

[Xception]

Ha ha at trolling , getting no takers and in a tantrum call everybody out for not taking the moronic bait . Then retrolling in a stroke of genius , good call bread boy . Ignore

 

[Xception]

Just when I thought Kansas was the weakest blue blood they reaffirm it again , if it weren't for nostalgia they would barely make the cut .

 

[Montana81]

Not sure that is what it shows... That's a small percentage of total overall games.

True. But it's a nice comeback for those that use lack of competition in the SEC as a reason for our overall dominance of college basketball.

We've been more dominant against other power conferences and blue bloods than anyone else as well.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

The only difference between the ACC and the SEC historically speaking is that the ACC has one more team with one or more titles.

UK
UF
Ark

Duke
UNCheat
Maryland
NC State

We have 3 schools with titles (11). They have 4 with titles (13). Neither conference has a bunch of schools vying for a final four every year. And if you take out Missouri and Texas A&M for the SEC and ND, Syracuse and Louisville from the ACC, because those schools only recently joined those conferences and for the purproses of this discussion don't really factor in, the SEC has 5 teams in Top 50 overall wins, and the ACC has 3.

Drops mic.

 

[kybassfan]

The only difference between the ACC and the SEC historically speaking is that the ACC has one more team with one or more titles.

UK
UF
Ark

Duke
UNCheat
Maryland
NC State

We have 3 schools with titles (11). They have 4 with titles (13). Neither conference has a bunch of schools vying for a final four every year. And if you take out Missouri and Texas A&M for the SEC and ND, Syracuse and Louisville from the ACC, because those schools only recently joined those conferences and for the purproses of this discussion don't really factor in, the SEC has 5 teams in Top 50 overall wins, and the ACC has 3.

Drops mic.

There is one additional difference that I think is significant. While I'm not into ESPN conspiracy theories, I do believe that the ACC is perceived as the "posh" basketball conference and ESPN pushes them as it is likely a better advertising sell. The SEC is the last word in football and basketball takes a backdoor in the south from an advertising perspective. As basketball (football as well) essentially has only one TV media outlet, aka ESPN, we have way too many sports fans that get their information from that outlet. These fans tend to believe what Sports Center tells them to believe, that the ACC is king of basketball conferences. While this doesn't hold up and you've provided data supporting that, folks tend to believe what they want to.

And they want to believe ESPN.

 

[Neue Regel]

The only difference between the ACC and the SEC historically speaking is that the ACC has one more team with one or more titles.

UK
UF
Ark

Duke
UNCheat
Maryland
NC State

We have 3 schools with titles (11). They have 4 with titles (13). Neither conference has a bunch of schools vying for a final four every year. And if you take out Missouri and Texas A&M for the SEC and ND, Syracuse and Louisville from the ACC, because those schools only recently joined those conferences and for the purproses of this discussion don't really factor in, the SEC has 5 teams in Top 50 overall wins, and the ACC has 3.

Drops mic.

ACC has around 120 more NCAA Tournament wins though. (Keep in mind this did not count the new entries (Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse) and it did count Maryland since they have been with the league all but one season. It also did count the 2005 additions with VT and Miami but that only equates to 12 additional tournament wins.) Arkansas was included in the SEC total.

 

[Mr. Anderson23]

In the "modern" era (since the tournament expanded to 64 teams), the usually acknowledged "blue bloods":

Dook:
4-3 vs. Indiana
7-3 vs. KU
5-1 vs. UK
40-32 vs. UNC
8-2 vs. UCLA

Indiana:
3-4 vs. Dook
1-5 vs. KU
10-19 vs. UK
3-2 vs. UNC
1-3 vs. UCLA

KU:
3-7 vs. Dook
5-1 vs. Indiana
5-7 vs. UK
4-2 vs. UNC
7-3 vs. UCLA

UK:
1-5 vs. Dook
19-10 vs. Indiana
7-5 vs. KU
8-10 vs. UNC
4-3 vs. UCLA

UNC:
32-40 vs. Dook
2-3 vs. Indiana
2-4 vs. KU
10-8 vs. UK
7-2 vs. UCLA

UCLA:
2-8 vs. Dook
3-1 vs. Indiana
3-7 vs. KU
3-4 vs. UK
2-7 vs. UNC

Just for giggles, the other two programs brought up in this thread

Louisville:
11-6 vs. UConn
2-2 vs. Dook
6-4 vs. Indiana
1-4 vs. KU
11-22 vs. UK
3-7 vs. UNC
5-10 vs. UCLA

UConn:
4-4 vs. Dook
6-2 vs. Indiana
0-2 vs. KU
4-1 vs. UK
6-11 vs. Louisville
1-5 vs. UNC
0-1 vs. UCLA

 

[brianpoe]

In the "modern" era (since the tournament expanded to 64 teams), the usually acknowledged "blue bloods":

Dook:
4-3 vs. Indiana
7-3 vs. KU
5-1 vs. UK
40-32 vs. UNC
8-2 vs. UCLA

Indiana:
3-4 vs. Dook
1-5 vs. KU
10-19 vs. UK
3-2 vs. UNC
1-3 vs. UCLA

KU:
3-7 vs. Dook
5-1 vs. Indiana
5-7 vs. UK
4-2 vs. UNC
7-3 vs. UCLA

UK:
1-5 vs. Dook
19-10 vs. Indiana
7-5 vs. KU
8-10 vs. UNC
4-3 vs. UCLA

UNC:
32-40 vs. Dook
2-3 vs. Indiana
2-4 vs. KU
10-8 vs. UK
7-2 vs. UCLA

UCLA:
2-8 vs. Dook
3-1 vs. Indiana
3-7 vs. KU
3-4 vs. UK
2-7 vs. UNC

Just for giggles, the other two programs brought up in this thread

Louisville:
11-6 vs. UConn
2-2 vs. Dook
6-4 vs. Indiana
1-4 vs. KU
11-22 vs. UK
3-7 vs. UNC
5-10 vs. UCLA

UConn:
4-4 vs. Dook
6-2 vs. Indiana
0-2 vs. KU
4-1 vs. UK
6-11 vs. Louisville
1-5 vs. UNC
0-1 vs. UCLA

.




What are the chances that you and "At least 23 W's" are the same person...?

Hmmm

 

[Xception]

Slicing time like it was a loaf of bread .

 

[UK till Death]

Slicing time like it was a loaf of bread .

Where do the fugazi Helms banners attempted to be passed off as legit championships fit into all these subjective time periods?

#UNCheat****
#RockBalkChokeHawk