(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(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.

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

TBH you are coming off as either ill informed or trolling wether intentional or not. Are you bringing up uconn as a troll talking point to discredit a team who has them? particularly cuse? who knows but I think most can tell the big difference between SU & Wisky in this conversation.

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

Have you ever read the Boneyard when it is discussing Syracuse? Dismissing Helms is Point 1 over there why UConn > Cuse.

(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.

Since Knight left Indiana, they have been to 7 tournaments in 13 years, 2 Sweet 16's, and a national championship game. They've also won 2 Big Ten regular season championships. You're talking as though they've been transformed into a doormat.

It's been a dozen years since Indiana last went to a Final Four. Other programs on the list have had droughts at least as long.

Louisville - 1987-2004
UConn - nothing before 1999
Kentucky - 1999-2010
Michigan State - 1980-98
Kansas - 1958-70

Others have had gaps almost as long.

Syracuse 1976-86
Duke - 1967-77

(05-18-2014 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

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

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

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

Have you ever read the Boneyard when it is discussing Syracuse? Dismissing Helms is Point 1 over there why UConn > Cuse.

Actually I rarely go to the boneyard. Haven't been there in over a year. It's that the issue, I understand, but maybe you should take it up with them. They don't represent all UConn fans.

I have great respect for Syracuse. UConn has been better than Syracuse since 1999. In fact they've probably been better than anyone. But before that it was all Syracuse. But really, what difference does it make? Those kinds of debates will go on forever. There is no way to resolve them and each fan base will bring up the points that favor their position.

(05-18-2014 09:46 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

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

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

Have you ever read the Boneyard when it is discussing Syracuse? Dismissing Helms is Point 1 over there why UConn > Cuse.

Actually I rarely go to the boneyard. Haven't been there in over a year. It's that the issue, I understand, but maybe you should take it up with them. They don't represent all UConn fans.

I have great respect for Syracuse. UConn has been better than Syracuse since 1999. In fact they've probably been better than anyone. But before that it was all Syracuse. But really, what difference does it make? Those kinds of debates will go on forever. There is no way to resolve them and each fan base will bring up the points that favor their position.

I can buy that...remember debates like this get us through the Spring/Summer. Hopefully, we can play again soon in FB and BB.

(05-18-2014 09:46 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

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

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

Have you ever read the Boneyard when it is discussing Syracuse? Dismissing Helms is Point 1 over there why UConn > Cuse.

Actually I rarely go to the boneyard. Haven't been there in over a year. It's that the issue, I understand, but maybe you should take it up with them. They don't represent all UConn fans.

I have great respect for Syracuse. UConn has been better than Syracuse since 1999. In fact they've probably been better than anyone. But before that it was all Syracuse. But really, what difference does it make? Those kinds of debates will go on forever. There is no way to resolve them and each fan base will bring up the points that favor their position.

This is the mindset uconn fans should be having. when uconn fans actually compare the uconn-SU rivalry like it is texas vs texas tech it gets annoying.

(05-18-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

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

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

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

TBH you are coming off as either ill informed or trolling wether intentional or not. Are you bringing up uconn as a troll talking point to discredit a team who has them? particularly cuse? who knows but I think most can tell the big difference between SU & Wisky in this conversation.

I didn't bring up UConn. So, what are you talking about?

I'm not discrediting Helms. I'm the one who brought Helms into this discussion as a credible credential for teams who have been recognized by them.

I didn't make a comparison between Syracuse and Wisconsin. The major difference between the 2 programs is that Syracuse has a few hundred more wins for anyone who cares about that. The two also played very different schedules.

I only brought Syracuse into the discussion with Wisconsin when someone disparaged my reference to Wiscy's Helms titles. I referenced Syracuse as another program whose record would also look different if you removed their Helms titles from their resume. If you did, they'd be only one of many programs that have won a single national title. But 3 titles puts them in a different category. Just as the Helms titles do for Wisconsin, who also has only one tournament championship.

The fact is that if the discussion is about is about best programs of all time. My only point about Wisconsin is that they have been recognized as national champs 4 times. That should get them into the conversation about best programs in the history of the sport regardless of how they compare with Syracuse.

If anyone wants to restrict the conversation to the tournament era or the modern era, that's fine with me. But as long as we're talking about "all time", then Wisconsin's got to be in the conversation.

In addition to their 4 NC's, Wisconsin also has 2 additional Final Four appearances. They've been to 20 tournaments in all and have been to 7 Sweet 16's just in the past 15 years.

Everyone agrees that Indiana belongs on the list. They compete in the same conference as Wisconsin. Indiana has 21 Big Ten regular season titles + 0 conference tournament titles while Wisconsin has 17 Big Ten titles + 2 conference tournament titles. I'd say that playing against the same competition, the two are pretty close. Indiana has 5 national titles, Wisconsin has 4. In addition to their NC's, Indiana has been to 3 other Final Fours. Wisconsin has been to 2. Indiana has a slight edge but the 2 programs have been pretty comparable by every measure. If we're talking about recent success, Wisconsin has clearly been the better program over the past 20 years.

(05-18-2014 09:50 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:46 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  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.

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

Have you ever read the Boneyard when it is discussing Syracuse? Dismissing Helms is Point 1 over there why UConn > Cuse.

Actually I rarely go to the boneyard. Haven't been there in over a year. It's that the issue, I understand, but maybe you should take it up with them. They don't represent all UConn fans.

I have great respect for Syracuse. UConn has been better than Syracuse since 1999. In fact they've probably been better than anyone. But before that it was all Syracuse. But really, what difference does it make? Those kinds of debates will go on forever. There is no way to resolve them and each fan base will bring up the points that favor their position.

I can buy that...remember debates like this get us through the Spring/Summer. Hopefully, we can play again soon in FB and BB.

Hope so. Once UConn became a good program in basketball, it became a great rivalry in that sport. Seriously, 6 overtimes??? :jaw drop:

The commitment is there for UConn to become competitive in football as well. I think the Diaco hire speaks volumes. Unfortunately UConn is currently in limbo after all our natural rivals left for greener pastures. Our present conference status leaves us really challenged in terms of building a football program. in the short run, basketball will thrive, but even that sport is handicapped in the long run. We hope and pray for better days.

I would have to put UCLA at the top of my list. I would have to put Kentucky ahead of North Carolina (even though I am from the Carolinas). For historical purposes I would have to add UTEP to a top 25 list and take out St Johns. UCONN (a team I don't like) would have to be in front of Louisville & Indiana. Memphis or Temple could be replaced by NCSU. Butler or VCU would be ahead of Princeton. and it would seem UNLV would have to ahead of some of these teams

(05-18-2014 10:19 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:36 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

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

I'm the UConn guy and I'm the one who brought Helms into the conversation. So, why are you picking on me? You must have a bias against UConn fans.

I was defending the use of Helms titles against someone who questioned their relevance.

My point in raising the question about Syracuse was to take a program that obviously belongs among the elite and to use them to show why helms titles are relevant.

You shouldn't be so thin skinned.

TBH you are coming off as either ill informed or trolling wether intentional or not. Are you bringing up uconn as a troll talking point to discredit a team who has them? particularly cuse? who knows but I think most can tell the big difference between SU & Wisky in this conversation.

I didn't bring up UConn. So, what are you talking about?

I'm not discrediting Helms. I'm the one who brought Helms into this discussion as a credible credential for teams who have been recognized by them.

I didn't make a comparison between Syracuse and Wisconsin. The major difference between the 2 programs is that Syracuse has a few hundred more wins for anyone who cares about that. The two also played very different schedules.

I only brought Syracuse into the discussion with Wisconsin when someone disparaged my reference to Wiscy's Helms titles. I referenced Syracuse as another program whose record would also look different if you removed their Helms titles from their resume. If you did, they'd be only one of many programs that have won a single national title. But 3 titles puts them in a different category. Just as the Helms titles do for Wisconsin, who also has only one tournament championship.

The fact is that if the discussion is about is about best programs of all time. My only point about Wisconsin is that they have been recognized as national champs 4 times. That should get them into the conversation about best programs in the history of the sport regardless of how they compare with Syracuse.

If anyone wants to restrict the conversation to the tournament era or the modern era, that's fine with me. But as long as we're talking about "all time", then Wisconsin's got to be in the conversation.

In addition to their 4 NC's, Wisconsin also has 2 additional Final Four appearances. They've been to 20 tournaments in all and have been to 7 Sweet 16's just in the past 15 years.

Everyone agrees that Indiana belongs on the list. They compete in the same conference as Wisconsin. Indiana has 21 Big Ten regular season titles + 0 conference tournament titles while Wisconsin has 17 Big Ten titles + 2 conference tournament titles. I'd say that playing against the same competition, the two are pretty close. Indiana has 5 national titles, Wisconsin has 4. In addition to their NC's, Indiana has been to 3 other Final Fours. Wisconsin has been to 2. Indiana has a slight edge but the 2 programs have been pretty comparable by every measure. If we're talking about recent success, Wisconsin has clearly been the better program over the past 20 years.

It's one thing to give credit for pre-war success to a team that has also been good post-war. But from 1954-1995, Wisconsin had only 2 winning seasons in the Big Ten, never finishing higher than fourth in that league. Two times in 42 years! It's hard to ignore such a long period where the program wasn't just mediocre, it was lousy.

When Wisconsin was winning its titles, basketball was a different game than it is now. It's like comparing UConn's women's team with those from the time when they essentially played a half-court game because women were thought to be too delicate to run up and down the floor.

If the badgers had been as dominant during their recent 18 years of good basketball as UConn has, they would be in the conversation. But they've been good, not great, in the modern era.

(05-19-2014 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's one thing to give credit for pre-war success to a team that has also been good post-war. But from 1954-1995, Wisconsin had only 2 winning seasons in the Big Ten, never finishing higher than fourth in that league. Two times in 42 years! It's hard to ignore such a long period where the program wasn't just mediocre, it was lousy.

When Wisconsin was winning its titles, basketball was a different game than it is now. It's like comparing UConn's women's team with those from the time when they essentially played a half-court game because women were thought to be too delicate to run up and down the floor.

If the badgers had been as dominant during their recent 18 years of good basketball as UConn has, they would be in the conversation. But they've been good, not great, in the modern era.

Okay. Fair enough.

In recognition of the validity of what you're saying, I'm going to suggest a completely different approach. Since the eras are all so different, I propose that rather than ranking teams "all time", they be ranked according to 3 major era, each of which is about the same length of time but each of which are all very different;

1. Pre-Tournament Era (1901-37) - 37 years
2. Closed Tournament Era NIT/NCAA (1938-74) - 37 years
3. Open Tournament/Modern Era (1975-2014) - 40 years

Here are my Top Ten for the first era with Helms titles and total wins in the era noted:

Pre-Tournament Era (1901-37)

1. Wisconsin (407 wins) - 3 Helms titles
2. Kansas (465 wins) - 2 Helms titles
3. Columbia (390 wins) - 3 Helms titles
4. Chicago (367 wins) - 3 Helms titles
5. Yale (424 wins) - 2 Helms titles
6. Syracuse (409 wins) - 2 Helms titles
7. Notre Dame (409 wins) - 2 Helms titles
8. Washington State (425 wins) - 1 Helms title
9. Montana State (423 wins) - 1 Helms title
10. St. John's (406 wins) - 1 Helms title

I'll post my top ten in the other two eras after I complete my research on them.

(05-19-2014 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's one thing to give credit for pre-war success to a team that has also been good post-war. But from 1954-1995, Wisconsin had only 2 winning seasons in the Big Ten, never finishing higher than fourth in that league. Two times in 42 years! It's hard to ignore such a long period where the program wasn't just mediocre, it was lousy.

When Wisconsin was winning its titles, basketball was a different game than it is now. It's like comparing UConn's women's team with those from the time when they essentially played a half-court game because women were thought to be too delicate to run up and down the floor.

If the badgers had been as dominant during their recent 18 years of good basketball as UConn has, they would be in the conversation. But they've been good, not great, in the modern era.

Just a postscript to your point, which is a good one.

Naturally enough fans emphasize recent success of other eras. My problem is that they then refer to programs as "all time" great programs. While your point about Wisconsin is valid, as I've acknowledged, fans have no problem including Louisville - and rightfully so since their success goes back to the 1950's. But their shortcomings are overlooked.

I don't mean to pick on Louisville and refer to them just for illustrative purposes. Before 1945, they had only 11 winning seasons. Not in conference, but overall. That's an entire era in which they did virtually nothing and is very comparable to the hole in Wisconsin's record. And early in its history, Louisville was playing largely against inferior NAIA competition, yet still was posting very few winning seasons while Wisconsin was struggling in one of the toughest conferences in the country during the period to which you referred.

I have focused on Wisconsin because their success has been largely forgotten and because 4 titles is a really big deal. It's historic. Only 7 other programs have that many titles regardless of how they acquired them. Without Helms, Kansas doesn't have 4. But they get recognized because they compiled a lot of wins despite the fact that for a long time those wins came against weak competition in a football focused conference. If Wisconsin were competing in the same conference instead of the Big Ten, my guess is that their record would look very different.

None of that isn't to say that your point isn't valid. I'm just explaining my thinking, while noting that thee are very few - if any - perfect candidates. Lots of programs have gone through dry periods.

(05-19-2014 12:17 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's one thing to give credit for pre-war success to a team that has also been good post-war. But from 1954-1995, Wisconsin had only 2 winning seasons in the Big Ten, never finishing higher than fourth in that league. Two times in 42 years! It's hard to ignore such a long period where the program wasn't just mediocre, it was lousy.

When Wisconsin was winning its titles, basketball was a different game than it is now. It's like comparing UConn's women's team with those from the time when they essentially played a half-court game because women were thought to be too delicate to run up and down the floor.

If the badgers had been as dominant during their recent 18 years of good basketball as UConn has, they would be in the conversation. But they've been good, not great, in the modern era.

Okay. Fair enough.

In recognition of the validity of what you're saying, I'm going to suggest a completely different approach. Since the eras are all so different, I propose that rather than ranking teams "all time", they be ranked according to 3 major era, each of which is about the same length of time but each of which are all very different;

1. Pre-Tournament Era (1901-37) - 37 years
2. Closed Tournament Era NIT/NCAA (1938-74) - 37 years
3. Open Tournament/Modern Era (1975-2014) - 40 years

Here are my Top Ten for the first era with Helms titles and total wins in the era noted:

Pre Tournament Era (1901-37)

1. Wisconsin (407 wins) - 3 Helms titles
2. Kansas (465 wins) - 2 Helms titles
3. Columbia (390 wins) - 3 Helms titles
4. Chicago (367 wins) - 3 Helms titles
5. Yale (424 wins) - 2 Helms titles
6. Syracuse (409 wins) - 2 Helms titles
7. Notre Dame (409 wins) - 2 Helms titles
8. Washington State (425 wins) - 1 Helms title
9. Montana state (423 wins) - 1 Helms title
10. St. John's (406 wins) - 1 Helms title

I'll post my top ten in the other two eras after I complete my research on them.

A school not on your list was the first to consistently traveling outside of its own region to face competition, has 2 Helms titles including one which was an undefeated team that included a two-time national scoring champion that was inducted into Naismith's first class. The second Helms championship team traveled to Montana State to defeat the defending national champion on their home floor in a game billed as the national championship. These teams were coached by a Naismith inductee coach, followed up its Helms titles by winning 4 Eastern Intercollegiate conference titles out of 7 years of the leagues existence, also appeared (and lost) in the national championship-billed season ending American Legion Bowl against LSU, and compiled 366 wins from 1905-1937.

I think your research is pretty lacking.

(05-19-2014 12:17 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  It's one thing to give credit for pre-war success to a team that has also been good post-war. But from 1954-1995, Wisconsin had only 2 winning seasons in the Big Ten, never finishing higher than fourth in that league. Two times in 42 years! It's hard to ignore such a long period where the program wasn't just mediocre, it was lousy.

When Wisconsin was winning its titles, basketball was a different game than it is now. It's like comparing UConn's women's team with those from the time when they essentially played a half-court game because women were thought to be too delicate to run up and down the floor.

If the badgers had been as dominant during their recent 18 years of good basketball as UConn has, they would be in the conversation. But they've been good, not great, in the modern era.

Okay. Fair enough.

In recognition of the validity of what you're saying, I'm going to suggest a completely different approach. Since the eras are all so different, I propose that rather than ranking teams "all time", they be ranked according to 3 major era, each of which is about the same length of time but each of which are all very different;

1. Pre-Tournament Era (1901-37) - 37 years
2. Closed Tournament Era NIT/NCAA (1938-74) - 37 years
3. Open Tournament/Modern Era (1975-2014) - 40 years

Here are my Top Ten for the first era with Helms titles and total wins in the era noted:

Pre-Tournament Era (1901-37)

1. Wisconsin (407 wins) - 3 Helms titles
2. Kansas (465 wins) - 2 Helms titles
3. Columbia (390 wins) - 3 Helms titles
4. Chicago (367 wins) - 3 Helms titles
5. Yale (424 wins) - 2 Helms titles
6. Syracuse (409 wins) - 2 Helms titles
7. Notre Dame (409 wins) - 2 Helms titles
8. Washington State (425 wins) - 1 Helms title
9. Montana state (423 wins) - 1 Helms title
10. St. John's (406 wins) - 1 Helms title

I'll post my top ten in the other two eras after I complete my research on them.

It would be hard to do better than the original list for the modern era. It's the middle period that doesn't have that many standouts due to UCLA's dominance. I tend to discount the WWII years just because so many potential stars were in a different kind of uniform.Off the top of my head from memory I'd probably have to include Ohio State, Cincinnati, UNC, Duke and maybe St John's. Kentucky, Kansas and Indiana probably make the list as well.

The premise of comparing schools all time is already misguided because the game of basketball before the shot-clock and 3 point line were introduced is nothing compared to the game today. They might as well be two different sports.

No, I don't respect a title won during the first world war.

Closed Tournament Era (1938-74)

1. UCLA - 9 NCAA titles
2. Kentucky - 4 NCAA titles, 1 NIT title
3. San Francisco - 2 NCAA titles, 1 NIT title
4. Cincinnati - 2 NCAA titles, 5 Final Fours
5. Kansas - 1 NCAA title, 6 Final Fours
6. North Carolina - 1 NCAA title, 6 Final Fours
7. Oklahoma State - 2 NCAA titles, 4 Final Fours
8. Ohio State - 1 NCAA title, 5 Final Fours
9. Indiana - 2 NCAA titles
10. Utah - 1 NCAA title, 1 NIT title

In this era, I focused on NCAA tournament performance rather than total wins because wins against different schedules are at best an imperfect basis for comparison while tournament performance provides a measure of comparison against national competition and making a tournament in itself gives recognition for regular season performance.

1. I think the Modern Era really begins in 1946 because that's when real competition began again after 43, 44 and 45.
2. The only "winner" from the pre-open format NCAA was UCLA who got a pass because of the west regional. Despite their paying players and despite the "pass" they had a great program.
3. When you talk about all - time there have been seven decades since WWII. To be considered for an all-time top 10 I think you need to show excellence in 5 of the 7 decades.
4. I am most familiar with the ACC so lets look at the 4 most successful ACC programs - first they were all Southern Conference programs prior to being ACC programs. If you rate the programs by decade - success in conference, conference titles, etc,., you get the following:

40's 1. NC State, 2. Duke, 3. UNC
50's 1. NC State, 2. UNC, 3. Duke
60's 1. Duke, 2. UNC, 3. Wake
70's 1 Tie NC State/UNC, 3 MD
80's 1. UNC, Tie 2. NC State, Duke, MD
90's 1. Duke, 2. UNC, 3. GT
00's 1. Duke, 2. UNC, 3. MD
10's 1. Duke, 2. UNC 3. ?

My point is that most folks forget that Duke was an all-sports power until the 1960's when the deemphasized football. They never deemphasized basketball and had only one bad period the time after Vic Bubas left to be Sun Belt commissioner in 1968 until Bill Foster go the program going again in 1978. Out side that span, Duke has been a power in basketball since the dawn of time. But most ACC school records prior to 1953 are essentially forgotten because all the key ACC teams were Southern Conference teams and the ACC left those records behind and does not talk about them. NC State was a top power for 4 of 5 decades between 1946 and 1991 when the administration practically shut down and deemphasized all sports for a decade then bad AD's hired bad coaches. UNC has been the most consistent over the past 7 decades, always managing to stay in the top 3 over the course of a decade. MD cracked the top three under Driesell but his throat cut after Len Bias died and MD hired a moron. Gary Williams was able to keep MD ahead of NC State in the 00's in part due to a really moribund coach.

Indiana comes to mind as a program that used to be top 10 and may still look top 10 in the aggregate, but they have been in the ditch since Knight was fired. To be top 10 all time, can you really be that an not have had an impact in the last 20 years? That would also be an issue for St. John's. Conversely can you be top ten if you made your mark over the last 20 years as has UConn?

(05-19-2014 01:46 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Closed Tournament Era (1938-74)

1. UCLA - 9 NCAA titles
2. Kentucky - 4 NCAA titles, 1 NIT title
3. San Francisco - 2 NCAA titles, 1 NIT title
4. Cincinnati - 2 NCAA titles, 5 Final Fours
5. Kansas - 1 NCAA title, 6 Final Fours
6. North Carolina - 1 NCAA title, 6 Final Fours
7. Ohio State - 1 NCAA title, 5 Final Fours
8. Indiana - 2 NCAA titles
9. Utah - 1 NCAA title, 1 NIT title
10. St. John's - 4 NIT titles, 1 NCAA R/U

In this era, I focused on NCAA tournament performance rather than total wins because wins against different schedules are at best an imperfect basis for comparison while tournament performance provides a measure of comparison against national competition and making a tournament in itself gives recognition for regular season performance.

I would place NC State at 9 with 1 NCAA title, 2 Final Fours, 1 NIT runner-up, and NC State was 27-0 the year before the NCAA title and was not allowed to play due to a UNC engineered one year probation on NC State and Duke after David Thompson did not commit to UNC.

(05-19-2014 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 01:46 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Closed Tournament Era (1938-74)

1. UCLA - 9 NCAA titles
2. Kentucky - 4 NCAA titles, 1 NIT title
3. San Francisco - 2 NCAA titles, 1 NIT title
4. Cincinnati - 2 NCAA titles, 5 Final Fours
5. Kansas - 1 NCAA title, 6 Final Fours
6. North Carolina - 1 NCAA title, 6 Final Fours
7. Ohio State - 1 NCAA title, 5 Final Fours
8. Indiana - 2 NCAA titles
9. Utah - 1 NCAA title, 1 NIT title
10. St. John's - 4 NIT titles, 1 NCAA R/U

In this era, I focused on NCAA tournament performance rather than total wins because wins against different schedules are at best an imperfect basis for comparison while tournament performance provides a measure of comparison against national competition and making a tournament in itself gives recognition for regular season performance.

I would place NC State at 9 with 1 NCAA title, 2 Final Fours, 1 NIT runner-up, and NC State was 27-0 the year before the NCAA title and was not allowed to play due to a UNC engineered one year probation on NC State and Duke after David Thompson did not commit to UNC.

Without getting in the middle of a UNC/NC State turf war, I'd have to agree that State probably deserves a spot ahead of Utah. They were excellent for much of this period and very good for nearly all of it. Their NC came at UCLA's expense, which has to count for a lot during this era.