(05-17-2014 02:55 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  uconn fans trying to down play the importance of all time wins & accomplishments from before the 80s

#not suprised

kentucky, ucla, michigan state, kansas, syracuse, duke, north carolina, uconn, louisville, indiana.

that is the top 10 (in no particular order) that the overwhelming majority of CBB fans seem to agree with. can't we just call it a day & leave it at that?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? As the only UConn fan who's posted here, I questioned why Wisconsin hasn't been recognized. All of their championships not only came before the 1980's, they came before the 1950's.

But three of them were Helms...and 1 was when the NCAA was suspect and it was only 8 teams. I think Wisconsin should be in the Top 20-25 but not the Top 10.

For Ken Before Boeheim Cuse was anywhere from Nationally good to a few periods of awful. Roy Danforth took Syracuse to the Final Four in 1975. The school's modern era of greatness started with Dave Bing in the early/mid 60's. They have had 20+ wins every year from about 1970 on with just a couple exceptions at 19 wins and one bad NIT team at 16-13.

(05-17-2014 07:15 PM)slowknight Wrote:  Louisvilles academics are terrible and They havent put one decent player in the NBA for 30 years. They should be out of the top 10.

Should a Rutgers fan even have a say? You guys suck at just about everything and are an embarrassment to your new league already.

(05-17-2014 06:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 03:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose you could debate the order of the teams, but it's really hard to argue with which ten are now at the top tier. There are a couple that could be considered to have not met some sort of longevity test, but if you drop them from the top ten, who could you replace them with? All others have their shortcomings as well.

If St John's had been able to sustain its level of performance post Carnesecca, they would be a candidate because they were good for so long. Instead, UConn, which hasn't been at the top very long, now has the credentials based on their multiple NCs. At some point, if you don't sustain the excellence, you have to give up on sentimentality and cut the cord. IMO, if Indiana doesn't start soon to return to the upper echelon, they are a candidate to fall out.

The problem with that argument is that you're ignoring the fact that a number of teams on the list did not sustain excellence in the first half of the 20th century or more.

What did UCLA & Duke do before the 1960's? Louisville before the 1950's? Michigan State before 1979 and for 20 years after that?

Why not a program like Penn with 2 national titles, top 10 or 12 in wins that really has sustained excellence for a really, really long time? Or Wisconsin with 4 national titles from the first half of the 20th century and back with 2 Final Fours in the past 16 years? Or Ohio State who appears in the 1st NCAA title game in 1939 and was back in the Final Four just 2 years ago with half a dozen other FF appearances and a national title in between. If you really want to talk about sustained excellence, then programs like those should be in the conversation

I'm not ignoring the first half of the 20th century, but for most of that time basketball wasn't exactly a truly national sport. It was what you did to kill the time between football and baseball seasons. So am I discounting that period? I suppose I am.

That's not to say the programs you mention weren't good. But they were largely unnoticed by much of the population. Today, Ohio State is something of a stealth program. They could be in the conversation just based on Thad Motta's record. They were outstanding 50 years ago, and pretty good in between. They also vacated more than 100 wins in that middle period.

But in any case, when I look at all the teams not on this list, and compare them to the ones who are, I don't find any who are demonstrably better except in spurts. UConn can also be said to be in something of a spurt, pretty much coinciding with Calhoun's tenure. But their results during their spurt are much better than anybody else's spurts, and their spurt has lasted longer.

Indiana's record, too, is pretty much linked to a single coach, which is why I think they could be supplanted on the list in the future. Syracuse also, though Boeheim's tenure has lasted so long I have a hard time remembering how they were before he became head coach. Many of the other programs, though, had excellence under multiple coaches. Those, in my mind, are the truly elite "programs" rather than "teams".

So you didn't mean "all time"?

Okay with me if you don't mean that. Just want to define what we're talking about.

(05-17-2014 07:51 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:55 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  uconn fans trying to down play the importance of all time wins & accomplishments from before the 80s

#not suprised

kentucky, ucla, michigan state, kansas, syracuse, duke, north carolina, uconn, louisville, indiana.

that is the top 10 (in no particular order) that the overwhelming majority of CBB fans seem to agree with. can't we just call it a day & leave it at that?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? As the only UConn fan who's posted here, I questioned why Wisconsin hasn't been recognized. All of their championships not only came before the 1980's, they came before the 1950's.

But three of them were Helms...and 1 was when the NCAA was suspect and it was only 8 teams. I think Wisconsin should be in the Top 20-25 but not the Top 10.

For Ken Before Boeheim Cuse was anywhere from Nationally good to a few periods of awful. Roy Danforth took Syracuse to the Final Four in 1975. The school's modern era of greatness started with Dave Bing in the early/mid 60's. They have had 20+ wins every year from about 1970 on with just a couple exceptions at 19 wins and one bad NIT team at 16-13.

I understand that Wisconsin's claim to fame comes from the pre-tournament, but Helms is pretty much all we have from that period. And if Helms titles don't count, how is Syracuse in the conversation? Without Helms, they have only one title. How can a program with just one title be an all time great program?

Just trying to define what we're talking about here.

(05-17-2014 07:15 PM)slowknight Wrote:  Louisvilles academics are terrible and They havent put one decent player in the NBA for 30 years. They should be out of the top 10.

Are we talking about top academic programs or top basketball programs? You can't have a conversation about the latter without including Louisville.

(05-17-2014 06:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 03:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose you could debate the order of the teams, but it's really hard to argue with which ten are now at the top tier. There are a couple that could be considered to have not met some sort of longevity test, but if you drop them from the top ten, who could you replace them with? All others have their shortcomings as well.

If St John's had been able to sustain its level of performance post Carnesecca, they would be a candidate because they were good for so long. Instead, UConn, which hasn't been at the top very long, now has the credentials based on their multiple NCs. At some point, if you don't sustain the excellence, you have to give up on sentimentality and cut the cord. IMO, if Indiana doesn't start soon to return to the upper echelon, they are a candidate to fall out.

The problem with that argument is that you're ignoring the fact that a number of teams on the list did not sustain excellence in the first half of the 20th century or more.

What did UCLA & Duke do before the 1960's? Louisville before the 1950's? Michigan State before 1979 and for 20 years after that?

Why not a program like Penn with 2 national titles, top 10 or 12 in wins that really has sustained excellence for a really, really long time? Or Wisconsin with 4 national titles from the first half of the 20th century and back with 2 Final Fours in the past 16 years? Or Ohio State who appears in the 1st NCAA title game in 1939 and was back in the Final Four just 2 years ago with half a dozen other FF appearances and a national title in between. If you really want to talk about sustained excellence, then programs like those should be in the conversation

I'm not ignoring the first half of the 20th century, but for most of that time basketball wasn't exactly a truly national sport. It was what you did to kill the time between football and baseball seasons. So am I discounting that period? I suppose I am.

That's not to say the programs you mention weren't good. But they were largely unnoticed by much of the population. Today, Ohio State is something of a stealth program. They could be in the conversation just based on Thad Motta's record. They were outstanding 50 years ago, and pretty good in between. They also vacated more than 100 wins in that middle period.

But in any case, when I look at all the teams not on this list, and compare them to the ones who are, I don't find any who are demonstrably better except in spurts. UConn can also be said to be in something of a spurt, pretty much coinciding with Calhoun's tenure. But their results during their spurt are much better than anybody else's spurts, and their spurt has lasted longer.

Indiana's record, too, is pretty much linked to a single coach, which is why I think they could be supplanted on the list in the future. Syracuse also, though Boeheim's tenure has lasted so long I have a hard time remembering how they were before he became head coach. Many of the other programs, though, had excellence under multiple coaches. Those, in my mind, are the truly elite "programs" rather than "teams".

Two NCAA championships before Knight. Just sayin' . . .

(05-17-2014 06:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think also that basketball was a very different game when it was limited to white players. Desegregation made arguably more of a difference in that sport than any other.

No doubt.

(05-17-2014 06:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:51 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  How about this . . .

I'm going to divide the history of college basketball into 6 eras of 19 years each. Here are the 5 best programs of each era in no particular order:

1901-19

Columbia
Chicago
Wisconsin
Yale
Minnesota

1920-38

Penn
Notre Dame
Pitt
Kansas
Temple

1939-57

San Francisco
Kentucky
Oklahoma State
Holy Cross
Indiana

1958-76

UCLA
Cincinnati
Ohio State
Kentucky
Cal

1977-95

Duke
North Carolina
Louisville
Indiana
UNLV

1996-2014

UConn
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Florida

Cal? During that period they were no better than a .500 team. St John's was much better in that era.

Fair point.

I had a tough time with #5 in that era. Cal was very strong at the beginning of the era but not much after those first few years. UCLA was so dominant it was hard to come with anyone else. Cal went to back-to-back title games, winning one championship. Who else had done any more on the national level?

St. John's had 2 NIT titles. They had a lot of winning season but Eastern basketball was down a notch in that period, so it wasn't against great competition. St. John's also had the betting scandal in the early '60's, which was partly responsible for the demise of basketball in the East at that time. If I'm looking to the East in that period, I could make an even stronger argument for Providence.

I considered putting UTEP as the 5th program just as a tip of the hat to their historic accomplishment.

Actually a great argument can be made for Michigan. 5 Elite 8's, 3 Final Fours, and 2 national runners up. Being runner up to UCLA was about as good as you could do in that period and the other R/U was to the undefeated Indiana team. The Cazzie Russell teams were dominant and were ranked #1 at the end of the season in 1965. The program was nationally ranked almost half the time in that period.

Ultimately, after UCLA, Cincinnati, Ohio State, and Kentucky, there really wasn't anyone who had a big run of national success in that period. North Carolina? But they always seemed to get clobbered in the Final Four after coming out of a weak East. Maybe that period should be limited to just 4 programs because that's really all there were.

(05-18-2014 02:22 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 06:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:51 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  How about this . . .

I'm going to divide the history of college basketball into 6 eras of 19 years each. Here are the 5 best programs of each era in no particular order:

1901-19

Columbia
Chicago
Wisconsin
Yale
Minnesota

1920-38

Penn
Notre Dame
Pitt
Kansas
Temple

1939-57

San Francisco
Kentucky
Oklahoma State
Holy Cross
Indiana

1958-76

UCLA
Cincinnati
Ohio State
Kentucky
Cal

1977-95

Duke
North Carolina
Louisville
Indiana
UNLV

1996-2014

UConn
Kentucky
North Carolina
Duke
Florida

Cal? During that period they were no better than a .500 team. St John's was much better in that era.

Fair point.

I had a tough time with #5 in that era. Cal was very strong at the beginning of the era but not much after those first few years. UCLA was so dominant it was hard to come with anyone else. Cal went to back-to-back title games, winning one championship. Who else had done any more on the national level?

St. John's had 2 NIT titles. They had a lot of winning season but Eastern basketball was down a notch in that period, so it wasn't against great competition. St. John's also had the betting scandal in the early '60's, which was partly responsible for the demise of basketball in the East at that time. If I'm looking to the East in that period, I could make an even stronger argument for Providence.

I considered putting UTEP as the 5th program just as a tip of the hat to their historic accomplishment.

Actually a great argument can be made for Michigan. 5 Elite 8's, 3 Final Fours, and 2 national runners up. Being runner up to UCLA was about as good as you could do in that period and the other R/U was to the undefeated Indiana team. The Cazzie Russell teams were dominant and were ranked #1 at the end of the season in 1965. The program was nationally ranked almost half the time in that period.

Ultimately, after UCLA, Cincinnati, Ohio State, and Kentucky, there really wasn't anyone who had a big run of national success in that period. North Carolina? But they always seemed to get clobbered in the Final Four after coming out of a weak East. Maybe that period should be limited to just 4 programs because that's really all there were.

Either Michigan or UNC would be good choices. If your cutoff had been in '57 instead of '58, Carolina's undefeated NC team would probably have swayed the vote in their favor. That tournament did a lot to enhance the status of college basketball, which had taken some hits due to scandal shortly before.

Some who think Michigan State basketball started with Magic Johnson didn't see that triple overtime semi-final against UNC. Carolina followed that up with another triple overtime game against Kansas and Wilt Chamberlain.

(05-17-2014 03:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose you could debate the order of the teams, but it's really hard to argue with which ten are now at the top tier. There are a couple that could be considered to have not met some sort of longevity test, but if you drop them from the top ten, who could you replace them with? All others have their shortcomings as well.

If St John's had been able to sustain its level of performance post Carnesecca, they would be a candidate because they were good for so long. Instead, UConn, which hasn't been at the top very long, now has the credentials based on their multiple NCs. At some point, if you don't sustain the excellence, you have to give up on sentimentality and cut the cord. IMO, if Indiana doesn't start soon to return to the upper echelon, they are a candidate to fall out.

The problem with that argument is that you're ignoring the fact that a number of teams on the list did not sustain excellence in the first half of the 20th century or more.

What did UCLA & Duke do before the 1960's? Louisville before the 1950's? Michigan State before 1979 and for 20 years after that?

Why not a program like Penn with 2 national titles, top 10 or 12 in wins that really has sustained excellence for a really, really long time? Or Wisconsin with 4 national titles from the first half of the 20th century and back with 2 Final Fours in the past 16 years? Or Ohio State who appears in the 1st NCAA title game in 1939 and was back in the Final Four just 2 years ago with half a dozen other FF appearances and a national title in between. If you really want to talk about sustained excellence, then programs like those should be in the conversation

I think a program must still be someone who can rise up. NYU doesn't qualify. Indiana even though they have had a down decade does.

Like in football, the Ivies and Army and Minnesota, aren't relevant anymore.

(05-17-2014 06:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 03:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose you could debate the order of the teams, but it's really hard to argue with which ten are now at the top tier. There are a couple that could be considered to have not met some sort of longevity test, but if you drop them from the top ten, who could you replace them with? All others have their shortcomings as well.

If St John's had been able to sustain its level of performance post Carnesecca, they would be a candidate because they were good for so long. Instead, UConn, which hasn't been at the top very long, now has the credentials based on their multiple NCs. At some point, if you don't sustain the excellence, you have to give up on sentimentality and cut the cord. IMO, if Indiana doesn't start soon to return to the upper echelon, they are a candidate to fall out.

The problem with that argument is that you're ignoring the fact that a number of teams on the list did not sustain excellence in the first half of the 20th century or more.

What did UCLA & Duke do before the 1960's? Louisville before the 1950's? Michigan State before 1979 and for 20 years after that?

Why not a program like Penn with 2 national titles, top 10 or 12 in wins that really has sustained excellence for a really, really long time? Or Wisconsin with 4 national titles from the first half of the 20th century and back with 2 Final Fours in the past 16 years? Or Ohio State who appears in the 1st NCAA title game in 1939 and was back in the Final Four just 2 years ago with half a dozen other FF appearances and a national title in between. If you really want to talk about sustained excellence, then programs like those should be in the conversation

I'm not ignoring the first half of the 20th century, but for most of that time basketball wasn't exactly a truly national sport. It was what you did to kill the time between football and baseball seasons. So am I discounting that period? I suppose I am.

That's not to say the programs you mention weren't good. But they were largely unnoticed by much of the population. Today, Ohio State is something of a stealth program. They could be in the conversation just based on Thad Motta's record. They were outstanding 50 years ago, and pretty good in between. They also vacated more than 100 wins in that middle period.

But in any case, when I look at all the teams not on this list, and compare them to the ones who are, I don't find any who are demonstrably better except in spurts. UConn can also be said to be in something of a spurt, pretty much coinciding with Calhoun's tenure. But their results during their spurt are much better than anybody else's spurts, and their spurt has lasted longer.

Indiana's record, too, is pretty much linked to a single coach, which is why I think they could be supplanted on the list in the future. Syracuse also, though Boeheim's tenure has lasted so long I have a hard time remembering how they were before he became head coach. Many of the other programs, though, had excellence under multiple coaches. Those, in my mind, are the truly elite "programs" rather than "teams".

Indiana was good long before Bobby Knight.

(05-18-2014 01:46 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:51 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:55 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  uconn fans trying to down play the importance of all time wins & accomplishments from before the 80s

#not suprised

kentucky, ucla, michigan state, kansas, syracuse, duke, north carolina, uconn, louisville, indiana.

that is the top 10 (in no particular order) that the overwhelming majority of CBB fans seem to agree with. can't we just call it a day & leave it at that?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? As the only UConn fan who's posted here, I questioned why Wisconsin hasn't been recognized. All of their championships not only came before the 1980's, they came before the 1950's.

But three of them were Helms...and 1 was when the NCAA was suspect and it was only 8 teams. I think Wisconsin should be in the Top 20-25 but not the Top 10.

For Ken Before Boeheim Cuse was anywhere from Nationally good to a few periods of awful. Roy Danforth took Syracuse to the Final Four in 1975. The school's modern era of greatness started with Dave Bing in the early/mid 60's. They have had 20+ wins every year from about 1970 on with just a couple exceptions at 19 wins and one bad NIT team at 16-13.

I understand that Wisconsin's claim to fame comes from the pre-tournament, but Helms is retry much all we have from that period. And if Helms titles don't count, how is Syracuse in the conversation? Without Helms, they have only one title. How can a program with just one title be an all time great program?

Just trying to define what we're talking about here.

Well UConn fans are so quick to dismiss Helms...I think Syracuse makes Top 10 lists for Programs for lots of other things as discussed above.

Depends on what criteria you prioritize. All time wins? National Championships? Tournament appearances? More importance on what you've done lately or length of program success?

I agree that the Top Ten in no particular order are:

UNC
Duke
UCLA
Louisville
UCONN
Kentucky
Indiana
Kansas
Syracuse
Michigan State

Despite their histories, Indiana and UCLA are the present day/modern era weakest members of this group, Indiana more so than anyone else. The team I have just outside this list is Florida.

Well UCLA did go to the Final Four 3 straight times within the past 10 years...that is still very strong...

(05-18-2014 11:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  Well UCLA did go to the Final Four 3 straight times within the past 10 years...that is still very strong...

Just my opinion on the subject. Last National Championship was almost 20 years ago in 1995 (before that you have to go back another 20 years). They had 3 good shots and couldn't capitalize. That makes it seem like an even bigger disappointment IMO.

(05-18-2014 11:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 11:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  Well UCLA did go to the Final Four 3 straight times within the past 10 years...that is still very strong...

Just my opinion on the subject. Last National Championship was almost 20 years ago in 1995 (before that you have to go back another 20 years). They had 3 good shots and couldn't capitalize. That makes it seem like an even bigger disappointment IMO.

Very few programs out of the 349 can even accomplish that in this time period....plus it is tough to get past those 11 NCAA National Titles and 18 Final Fours...

(05-18-2014 11:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 11:28 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 11:20 AM)Maize Wrote:  Well UCLA did go to the Final Four 3 straight times within the past 10 years...that is still very strong...

Just my opinion on the subject. Last National Championship was almost 20 years ago in 1995 (before that you have to go back another 20 years). They had 3 good shots and couldn't capitalize. That makes it seem like an even bigger disappointment IMO.

Very few programs out of the 349 can even accomplish that in this time period....plus it is tough to get past those 11 NCAA National Titles and 18 Final Fours...

True. I guess my thought is that UCLA and Indiana seem to have hit their peaks long ago, whereas the other 8 continue to add to their resumes/stats/trophy cases every year.

I think everybody's list is pretty reasonable. I prefer Melky's method of breaking it down into eras, b/c it is hard to compare different eras. And the closer you get to the present, the more that carries, unfairly, b/c people tend to vote for teams they have seen in their own lifetime.

(05-18-2014 08:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 06:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 03:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 02:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  I suppose you could debate the order of the teams, but it's really hard to argue with which ten are now at the top tier. There are a couple that could be considered to have not met some sort of longevity test, but if you drop them from the top ten, who could you replace them with? All others have their shortcomings as well.

If St John's had been able to sustain its level of performance post Carnesecca, they would be a candidate because they were good for so long. Instead, UConn, which hasn't been at the top very long, now has the credentials based on their multiple NCs. At some point, if you don't sustain the excellence, you have to give up on sentimentality and cut the cord. IMO, if Indiana doesn't start soon to return to the upper echelon, they are a candidate to fall out.

The problem with that argument is that you're ignoring the fact that a number of teams on the list did not sustain excellence in the first half of the 20th century or more.

What did UCLA & Duke do before the 1960's? Louisville before the 1950's? Michigan State before 1979 and for 20 years after that?

Why not a program like Penn with 2 national titles, top 10 or 12 in wins that really has sustained excellence for a really, really long time? Or Wisconsin with 4 national titles from the first half of the 20th century and back with 2 Final Fours in the past 16 years? Or Ohio State who appears in the 1st NCAA title game in 1939 and was back in the Final Four just 2 years ago with half a dozen other FF appearances and a national title in between. If you really want to talk about sustained excellence, then programs like those should be in the conversation

I'm not ignoring the first half of the 20th century, but for most of that time basketball wasn't exactly a truly national sport. It was what you did to kill the time between football and baseball seasons. So am I discounting that period? I suppose I am.

That's not to say the programs you mention weren't good. But they were largely unnoticed by much of the population. Today, Ohio State is something of a stealth program. They could be in the conversation just based on Thad Motta's record. They were outstanding 50 years ago, and pretty good in between. They also vacated more than 100 wins in that middle period.

But in any case, when I look at all the teams not on this list, and compare them to the ones who are, I don't find any who are demonstrably better except in spurts. UConn can also be said to be in something of a spurt, pretty much coinciding with Calhoun's tenure. But their results during their spurt are much better than anybody else's spurts, and their spurt has lasted longer.

Indiana's record, too, is pretty much linked to a single coach, which is why I think they could be supplanted on the list in the future. Syracuse also, though Boeheim's tenure has lasted so long I have a hard time remembering how they were before he became head coach. Many of the other programs, though, had excellence under multiple coaches. Those, in my mind, are the truly elite "programs" rather than "teams".

Indiana was good long before Bobby Knight.

You guys are right. The Hoosiers had some pretty good teams under Branch McCracken. They weren't that consistent, but good enough to make the list.

(05-18-2014 10:16 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Depends on what criteria you prioritize. All time wins? National Championships? Tournament appearances? More importance on what you've done lately or length of program success?

I agree that the Top Ten in no particular order are:

UNC
Duke
UCLA
Louisville
UCONN
Kentucky
Indiana
Kansas
Syracuse
Michigan State

Despite their histories, Indiana and UCLA are the present day/modern era weakest members of this group, Indiana more so than anyone else. The team I have just outside this list is Florida.

But if we're talking "all time" as the OP stated, then why do the last 10 years carry any more weigh than a decade a century ago?