!.Kentucky 100
2.UCLA 98
3.UNC 96
4.Duke 86
5.Kansas 82
6.Indiana 60
7.Louisville 57
8.Syracuse 48
9.Gtown 45
10.Villanova 44
11.Ohio St 43
12.Mich St 43
13.Uconn 42
14.Arizona 41
15.Arkansas 40
as you can see the Big East is the most tradition rich of the Big 6 conferences with 5 teams in the top 15 all time in NCAA wins. Syracuse results are bittersweet we always get a few NCAA wins but have only been able to seal the deal once in 2003.
UofL should catch Indiana next season as I don't see poor Tom Crean making the tournament with the mess he stepped into at IU. Don't see UK adding to their totals in the next few seasons either.
CJ
CardinalJim Wrote:UofL should catch Indiana next season as I don't see poor Tom Crean making the tournament with the mess he stepped into at IU. Don't see UK adding to their totals in the next few seasons either.
CJ
louisville would have to make it back to the elite eight to catch indiana.
xubrew Wrote:louisville would have to make it back to the elite eight to catch indiana.
With the talent we have returning, anything less than a Final Four and the season will be viewed as a disappointment.
CJ
I think Cincy has 40-ish? Did they get left off the list accidentally?
Marquette is 21st with 32 wins.
UC is 40-23 in the NCAA Tourney.....so we are tied with Arkansas.
We have 2 national championships
6 final fours
Arkansas leads among former SWC schools. Louisville among former Metro/CUSA schools. UNLV, Houston would have been on this list 20 years ago, but haven't kept up.
It's interesting that UL is at #7. In all the various lists I've seen ranking programs all-time, UL is always at 7. 1-6 can shift around a bit depending on who's doing the calculations, and 8 and beyond will do the same, but UL is always 7...
I wonder how many NCAA wins Uconn has before Calhoun got there...probably not many
Jackson
With UC's 40 wins that puts 6 of the BE in Top 15....four (UofL, UC, UConn, and Cuse) from the football only group!
Jackson1011 Wrote:I wonder how many NCAA wins Uconn has before Calhoun got there...probably not many
Jackson
The same can be said about Arizone/Lute Olsen, Georgetown/John Thompson, and SU/Jim Boeheim.
NCAA Tournament wins statistics is kind of a useless stats. Why? Because the NCAA Tournament wasn't always the main tournament (the NIT used to be). The the NCAA Tournament didn't expand until the 80s, before then only conference champions got in, and even then they didn't play as many games. And then there were consolation games, which were kind of meaningless.
CatsClaw Wrote:NCAA Tournament wins statistics is kind of a useless stats. Why? Because the NCAA Tournament wasn't always the main tournament (the NIT used to be). The the NCAA Tournament didn't expand until the 80s, before then only conference champions got in, and even then they didn't play as many games. And then there were consolation games, which were kind of meaningless.
Agreed. NCAA wins only is very useless. Tournament is sometimes the luck of draw. Overall wins in the similar period might be more indicative of which program is the top.
I would think that this list is very similar to the all time winningest programs. Taking a look at the top 15 in this list is very indicative of the winningest programs in ncaa history.
A year or two ago Street and Smith had their Top 100 programs of all time which took into account wins, tourney wins, being good in different decades, national championships, all american's etc.
From what I remember
UCONN
UofL
UC
Cuse
where all in the top 10.....can't remember if Gtown was or not.
CatsClaw Wrote:NCAA Tournament wins statistics is kind of a useless stats. Why? Because the NCAA Tournament wasn't always the main tournament (the NIT used to be). The the NCAA Tournament didn't expand until the 80s, before then only conference champions got in, and even then they didn't play as many games. And then there were consolation games, which were kind of meaningless.
yup...CCNY has 2 NCAA titles...San Fran has a title...but that doesn't make them better programs than Memphis (3 FF, no title) or Houston (5 FF, no title).
our 50's NIT runner-up was thought of as a "national runner-up" back then.
Go Tigers!!!
Drew
UofMemphis Wrote:CatsClaw Wrote:NCAA Tournament wins statistics is kind of a useless stats. Why? Because the NCAA Tournament wasn't always the main tournament (the NIT used to be). The the NCAA Tournament didn't expand until the 80s, before then only conference champions got in, and even then they didn't play as many games. And then there were consolation games, which were kind of meaningless.
yup...CCNY has 2 NCAA titles...San Fran has a title...but that doesn't make them better programs than Memphis (3 FF, no title) or Houston (5 FF, no title).
our 50's NIT runner-up was thought of as a "national runner-up" back then.
Go Tigers!!!
Drew
That is certainly true, especially since those programs have dropped off the face of the earth. I dont think anyone in their right mind would put them ahead of Memphis, even if you consider their titles, because they havent been relevant for many, many years. But there is something to be said about programs that are consistantly good. When I say consistantly good, I'm talking about being good for literally decades and decades, which is what those all time top 10 or 15 programs have done. Sure there may be a few down years mixed in there, which is to be expected, but those programs have proven to be very consistant.
SF Husky Wrote:CatsClaw Wrote:NCAA Tournament wins statistics is kind of a useless stats. Why? Because the NCAA Tournament wasn't always the main tournament (the NIT used to be). The the NCAA Tournament didn't expand until the 80s, before then only conference champions got in, and even then they didn't play as many games. And then there were consolation games, which were kind of meaningless.
Agreed. NCAA wins only is very useless. Tournament is sometimes the luck of draw. Overall wins in the similar period might be more indicative of which program is the top.
Exactly. Now if you're talking about NCAA Tournament wins over the last, say, 20 years, then that would be a far more accurate statistics. The overall history of NCAA Tournament wins are useless, I should have explained myself more clearly . You're right SF.
cuseroc Wrote:I would think that this list is very similar to the all time winningest programs. Taking a look at the top 15 in this list is very indicative of the winningest programs in ncaa history.
I don't even think it's indicative of that since the NCAA Tournament didn't expand until relatively recently.