Program/All Time Weeks Spent in Top 25 (Since 1949 AP Ranking started)
UC #12
UConn #21
Memphis #25
Temple #49
UH #63
Tulsa #82
SMU #88

UC 12th all time....

Know your place

No one cares/remembers #1 rankings. What's UC's NCAA tourney record? Talk about under-performing when it matters the most.

I remember these.

If you look at the rankings since 1980 cincy drops to 24.

Uconn 12

Memphis 23

LMAO. OP tried to E-Peen and got owned. Cincinnati has been a good but not great program since 1964. These stats are all misleading unless you value Final Four's and rankings in the late 1950's...

What do the last 3 years look like?

Data says both are quality programs. Let's leave it at that.

(02-20-2017 07:51 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  No one cares/remembers #1 rankings. What's UC's NCAA tourney record? Talk about under-performing when it matters the most.

UC is 45-29 all time. UConn is 59-30. UConn with 4 titles, UC with 2. Don't try to make it seem you never lose in the NCAA's. Both have done well over the years.

(02-20-2017 09:57 PM)Tech Savy Wrote:  LMAO. OP tried to E-Peen and got owned. Cincinnati has been a good but not great program since 1964. These stats are all misleading unless you value Final Four's and rankings in the late 1950's...

I mean, even if you use that endpoint, UC is still what? A top 25 program in that timeframe?

UC needs to make runs in the tournament to make any progress now as they have the regular season covered, that much is obvious. But let's not kid ourselves here. Cincy is still a great basketball program.

Cincinnati is a storied basketball program, but UConn is the best all-time program in the conference unless we get back to winning championships.

Anyone know how teams in the conference rank since 1984-85? I would say that is probably of more.importance since it would go towards the current relevance of the teams/league, thats when the NCAA gield went to 64 or the modern era. Also maybe the Nbe numbers in comparison, since so much focus has been on them being a better basketball conference?

That's such a skewed stat. Before Tourney expansion a team had to win their conference to even make the Tourney. During UC's run of 5 straight Final Fours UC had to beat #4 Bradley in a one game playoff to be the MVC champion and even get there. It was in fact harder to advance cause basically only ranked teams got an invite. During the period of that same UC run, UConn was also in these undiluted Tourneys having won their conference. Playing against such a lineup of teams they went 1-10 in their first 8 NCAA tourneys. Obviously it's hard to get to the Finals either way.

Hence my shot at UConn winning titles playin a lineup of mostly #8 to #16 seeds. Obviously still impressive, but also based on some luck in any particular game. And especially based on the luck of the seeded teams who happen to win to advance and play you.

Which is more impressive? Arizona's 1996 Title where they beat three #1 seeds? Or UConn's 4 titles where they only beat two #1 seeds total? Obviously everyone would want the 4 titles, but no doubt what Arizona did was the most impressive. And what Arizona did is more comparable to the early Tourney title winners.

Cincinnati won the 1961 title beating AP
#12 Texas Tech
#4 Kansas St
#11 Utah,
#1 Ohio St.

That's the equivalent of today beating two #1 seeds and two #3 seeds to win the title.

In 1962 they beat the equivalent of two #1 seeds, a #2 seed, and a #4 seed in five games to win their second straight title.

#4 Bradley
Creighton
#8 Colorado
#17 UCLA
#1 Ohio St

Talk about hitting the gauntlet...

And in case anyone is counting, there were three Hall of Famers on each of those 2 Ohio St teams.

UCF has been ranked how come were omitted from your post?

Also quoting rankings from 50yrs+ ago is such a waste of time. UTEP was a once great bball program, Tulane used to be in the SEC, and University of the South used to be unstoppable in football.

Cinci is a beast hoops program, no need to look at stats from when only white people played to confirm this.

(02-21-2017 11:16 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  UCF has been ranked how come were omitted from your post?

Also quoting rankings from 50yrs+ ago is such a waste of time. UTEP was a once great bball program, Tulane used to be in the SEC, and University of the South used to be unstoppable in football.

Cinci is a beast hoops program, no need to look at stats from when only white people played to confirm this.

Most of UCs starters were black and all those stats were after Oscar Robertson played

Everything played before today's games are in the past. But I get the jealousy a other fans who have no history but a history of futility.

(02-21-2017 03:09 AM)payday Wrote:  Hence my shot at UConn winning titles playin a lineup of mostly #8 to #16 seeds. Obviously still impressive, but also based on some luck in any particular game. And especially based on the luck of the seeded teams who happen to win to advance and play you.

Which is more impressive? Arizona's 1996 Title where they beat three #1 seeds? Or UConn's 4 titles where they only beat two #1 seeds total? Obviously everyone would want the 4 titles, but no doubt what Arizona did was the most impressive. And what Arizona did is more comparable to the early Tourney title winners.

You need to do some research to see if it really played out the way you imagine, because I can tell you it did not.

Outside of 2004, UConn has had a very tough road. Heck, in 2014, they played Villanova, Iowa St., Michigan State, Florida and Kentucky in succession.

But, also of note, UConn has lost in the Final 8 to eventual national champions UCLA, North Carolina, Duke and Maryland.

I don't think UConn's success owes itself to easy seeding, outside of the 2004 team, which was actually by far and away the best team in the country.

In fact, an argument can be made that UConn would be even more successful were it not for the seeding.

If it wasn't for the last few years I'm almost sure SMU would be knocked out of the top 100