68-51
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-68-51/
50-26
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-50-26/
25-1
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...-all-time/

AAC:
10. Cincinnati
24. Temple
34. Memphis
42. Houston
60. Wichita State

Might as well also include the Big East, right?

Big East:
8. UConn
9. Villanova
17. St. John's
20. Georgetown
35. Marquette
46. Xavier
54. Providence
67. Depaul

Thanks

Would probably rank Temple a little lower and put Marquette and Memphis in the top 30. WKU isn't a top 50 program yet alone a top 25 program.

(11-19-2020 04:19 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  68-51
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-68-51/
50-26
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-50-26/
25-1
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...-all-time/

AAC:
10. Cincinnati
24. Temple
34. Memphis
42. Houston
60. Wichita State

Might as well also include the Big East, right?

Big East:
8. UConn
9. Villanova
17. St. John's
20. Georgetown
35. Marquette
46. Xavier
54. Providence
67. Depaul

Also since I realize this was posted as a shot at the AAC, where's the comparative ranking list for both league's respective football programs?

(11-19-2020 04:43 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 04:19 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  68-51
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-68-51/
50-26
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-50-26/
25-1
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...-all-time/

AAC:
10. Cincinnati
24. Temple
34. Memphis
42. Houston
60. Wichita State

Might as well also include the Big East, right?

Big East:
8. UConn
9. Villanova
17. St. John's
20. Georgetown
35. Marquette
46. Xavier
54. Providence
67. Depaul

Also since I realize this was posted as a shot at the AAC, where's the comparative ranking list for both league's respective football programs?

Not meant as a shot I just think it's neat to look at program's in a historical context. Lot's of all-time great programs in both conferences. I think you can make a case for Memphis and Houston being too low. Temple has a ton of all-time wins but I think Cincinnati is closer to 20 than 10.

(11-19-2020 04:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Would probably rank Temple a little lower and put Marquette and Memphis in the top 30. WKU isn't a top 50 program yet alone a top 25 program.

Temple is sixth all time in wins, won the NIT in 1938 (which was the national championship) two final fours, 8 elite eights, 7 sweet 16s, 33 tournament appearances, 27 Big 5 titles, 9 conference tournament championships, and 20 conference regular season championships. We are actually underrated in this poll.
Edit: and 34 drafted NBA players.

(11-19-2020 05:24 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 04:43 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 04:19 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  68-51
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-68-51/
50-26
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-50-26/
25-1
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...-all-time/

AAC:
10. Cincinnati
24. Temple
34. Memphis
42. Houston
60. Wichita State

Might as well also include the Big East, right?

Big East:
8. UConn
9. Villanova
17. St. John's
20. Georgetown
35. Marquette
46. Xavier
54. Providence
67. Depaul

Also since I realize this was posted as a shot at the AAC, where's the comparative ranking list for both league's respective football programs?

Not meant as a shot I just think it's neat to look at program's in a historical context. Lot's of all-time great programs in both conferences. I think you can make a case for Memphis and Houston being too low. Temple has a ton of all-time wins but I think Cincinnati is closer to 20 than 10.

Rankings were based on a points-system. If you think Cincy doesn't deserve its #10 ranking, then why not posit and share with us an alternative grading system that supports your contention?

(11-19-2020 05:31 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 04:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Would probably rank Temple a little lower and put Marquette and Memphis in the top 30. WKU isn't a top 50 program yet alone a top 25 program.

Temple is sixth all time in wins, won the NIT in 1938 (which was the national championship) two final fours, 8 elite eights, 7 sweet 16s, 33 tournament appearances, 27 Big 5 titles, 9 conference tournament championships, and 20 conference regular season championships. We are actually underrated in this poll.
Edit: and 34 drafted NBA players.

Not all wins/regular season titles are worth the same. I think Temple has had a lot of pretty good seasons. Which has translated into a lot of tourney appearances. However, yall haven't been elite all that often. Only ranked in the final AP poll 9 times though and last final four was in the 50's. I also don't really think a title from the 30's really holds much weight, no offense. Memphis for instance has been ranked in the final AP poll 16 times and made final fours in three different decades (all of which were more recent than Temple's last FF). Again when I say I'd rank yall lower I mean I'd have yall in the mid 30's which is still really good. I'd probably have Memphis inside the top 30 (barely). Marquette is probably a borderline top 20 program. I'd have UH in the 40's if that's any consolation.

(11-19-2020 05:24 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 04:43 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 04:19 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  68-51
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-68-51/
50-26
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...nos-50-26/
25-1
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...-all-time/

AAC:
10. Cincinnati
24. Temple
34. Memphis
42. Houston
60. Wichita State

Might as well also include the Big East, right?

Big East:
8. UConn
9. Villanova
17. St. John's
20. Georgetown
35. Marquette
46. Xavier
54. Providence
67. Depaul

Also since I realize this was posted as a shot at the AAC, where's the comparative ranking list for both league's respective football programs?

Not meant as a shot I just think it's neat to look at program's in a historical context. Lot's of all-time great programs in both conferences. I think you can make a case for Memphis and Houston being too low. Temple has a ton of all-time wins but I think Cincinnati is closer to 20 than 10.

Cincinnati:
National Championships: T-9th
Final Fours: T-10th
NCAA Tournament Appearances: T-12th
Wins: 11th
AP Poll Appearances: 12th
Appearances in the Top Ten: 7th
Weeks at #1: 7th

Nah.

I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

(11-19-2020 04:19 PM)huskiesnyc Wrote:  Might as well also include the Big East, right?

Over on the Big East board.

This is the AAC board; the Big East teams are only as relevant as the Big 10, PAC 12, or SEC.

I hadn't really missed the insufferable uconn fans... "Nameless" has been a welcomed presence on this board...even the Whaler Fan has done OK. I suggest you go hang with your Big East homeboys over on the Big East discussion forums.

WKU and St. John's ahead of Temple is ridiculous.

(11-19-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

(11-19-2020 07:30 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

So would UNC

(11-19-2020 08:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:30 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

So would UNC

(11-19-2020 08:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:30 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

So would UNC

what do you mean? The SEC hasn't nearly been as historically strong as the ACC.

(11-19-2020 09:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 08:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:30 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

So would UNC

what does this even mean?

(11-19-2020 09:35 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 08:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:30 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:19 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 06:52 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  I really hate to argue for them. But UNC is a better program than UK, they have been much more consistent over the years. Some of the stats are irrelevant. For example, making the NCAA tournament, well back in the day it was 1 team per league. UK got to coast in the SEC.

UNC had a run of 13 straight sweet 16s from 1981-1993. Only UCLA has had that kind of run. If anyone is above UNC, it's UCLA, but obviously UNC has been much more consistent.

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

So would UNC

what do you mean? The SEC hasn't nearly been as historically strong as the ACC.

If Kentucky was in the ACC with UNC when only one team was being admitted they would have beat out UNC many years. Thus UNC wouldn't have as many appearances.

(11-19-2020 09:50 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 09:35 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 08:40 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:30 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  [quote='WhoseHouse?' pid='17105782' dateline='1605831546']

Doesn't look that way. Kentucky's the clear #1 to me. More tourney appearances, S16's, E8's, championship games, and championships than UNC. Five different coaches have led them to titles. UNC is no slouch and the clear #2 but I think there's a noticeable line of separation between the two programs.

Again, a lot of that happened during the 1 team per conference days. UK would have less tournament appearances had they been in the ACC. But, I would never admit to my UNC friends :)

So would UNC

what do you mean? The SEC hasn't nearly been as historically strong as the ACC.

If Kentucky was in the ACC with UNC when only one team was being admitted they would have beat out UNC many years. Thus UNC wouldn't have as many appearances.
[/quoteng


Weak argument imo, there have been many other solid programs in the ACC. Maryland, NCSU, and Duke come to mind. Hell NCSU was THE program in the 50s and in the mid 70s they were the best program not named UCLA (they beat Walton in the finals).

UK had no legitimate threats in the SEC. Pretty easy question to ask yourself? Did UK have an easier or more difficult path to the NCAAs in the single bid era?