Potential issues with this:
1) This goes back to 1939. Some teams weren't around back then. And since this is cumulative and not average per season, some older teams have more chances to gain points
2) Points for conference champions (part 1) - This is the 3rd biggest point earner per season. 2nd place in some conferences is more difficult than winning others
3) Points for conference championships (part 2) - Some great teams were independent. For example the 67-68 Houston squad got no points for conference championship

(11-19-2020 10:22 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  Potential issues with this:
1) This goes back to 1939. Some teams weren't around back then. And since this is cumulative and not average per season, some older teams have more chances to gain points
2) Points for conference champions (part 1) - This is the 3rd biggest point earner per season. 2nd place in some conferences is more difficult than winning others
3) Points for conference championships (part 2) - Some great teams were independent. For example the 67-68 Houston squad got no points for conference championship

Why are Houston fans so butt hurt about a list? Maybe if they didn’t count the mid-1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s you could be something too.

(11-19-2020 10:31 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 10:22 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  Potential issues with this:
1) This goes back to 1939. Some teams weren't around back then. And since this is cumulative and not average per season, some older teams have more chances to gain points
2) Points for conference champions (part 1) - This is the 3rd biggest point earner per season. 2nd place in some conferences is more difficult than winning others
3) Points for conference championships (part 2) - Some great teams were independent. For example the 67-68 Houston squad got no points for conference championship

Why are Houston fans so butt hurt about a list? Maybe if they didn’t count the mid-1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s you could be something too.

Who's butthurt?

(11-19-2020 10:22 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  Potential issues with this:
1) This goes back to 1939. Some teams weren't around back then. And since this is cumulative and not average per season, some older teams have more chances to gain points
2) Points for conference champions (part 1) - This is the 3rd biggest point earner per season. 2nd place in some conferences is more difficult than winning others
3) Points for conference championships (part 2) - Some great teams were independent. For example the 67-68 Houston squad got no points for conference championship

1b) not only does it go back to 1939, it heavily weighs "weeks" in the poll, not the final coaches poll.. which allows for exponential growth ... 2016 Texas who finished 10-20 had more points (3 weeks ranked), than Loyola Chicago on their 2018 final 4 run (never ranked)..it also isnt weighted, #1 and #24 rankings are the same

2b) Points for conference championships (part 3) - not all conferences are created equal.. all are weighed the same

(11-19-2020 09:58 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(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?

Indiana and Marquette were better in the mid-70's than NCST

Kentucky was the program of the 50's

Kentucky won four titles in the 1 bid per league era. No team from the ACC/Southern was going to block Kentucky in those years. I would also argue it wasn't until the early 60's that the ACC cemented itself as a better league than the SEC. The SEC in the 50's had Miss St., Vandy, LSU, and other solid teams that constantly ran into Kentucky. So in the 50's I'm taking the SEC. After about 1962 or 1963 I'd take the ACC. Even still the ACC wasn't raking titles or anything. UNC got one in the 50's and NCST won in 1974 (the last title pre-expansion), that's it. So in my mind Kentucky's still sitting at 8 titles to UNC's 6. Both programs are basically even in wins. Kentucky's produced more All-Americans and NBA players. Won more conference championships. Won natty's with five different coaches. UNC has more final fours and thats about it. I don't know maybe more what if's.

(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

Wow!

This list certainly tends to suggest that Cincinnati deserves to be regarded as one of the elite "blue blood" basketball schools. Even those who don't consider them a blue blood may be persuaded to acknowledge, at least, that Cincy is one of the all-time top echelon basketball schools.

Congrats, Bearcats fans. You certainly have a lot of things to be happy about.

.

I'm thrilled to see Temple ranked #24 on the all-time list, given the program's struggles over the past half-decade. Temple certainly would have been considered an all-time top 30 caliber program during/after the peak years of the John Chaney era, when Coach Chaney took 18 teams into the NCAA tournament. However, the #24 ranking came as a surprise because Temple's record since then has dropped off somewhat, particularly the number of NCAA tournaments they've played in and their tournament record.

Perhaps it shouldn't come as a complete shock, however, considering that every Head Coach in Temple's history has finished his career with a winning record, and that Temple has played in 49 NCAA (33) or NIT (16) post-season basketball tournaments between 1938 and 2019 (81 years; 49/81=60.4%).

The 1938 Owls are widely regarded as having won the national championship, by virtue of winning the inaugural NIT championship (the only national collegiate championship tournament that was played in 1938), eight Temple teams have advanced to the NCAA elite eight and seven have advanced to the NCAA (2) or NIT (5) final four. In addition, Temple teams won the 1957 and 2002 NIT 3rd place games, and the 1968-69 Temple team won the NIT when a NIT championship was considered about as prestigious as advancing to the NCAA final four, if not moreso, due to the fact that there were only 16 teams in the NCAA field, with only one team per conference being represented.

In addition, while the Owls didn't have the benefit of playing in a major conference, the program gained stature in the eyes of basketball insiders, due to their decades of success in the Philadelphia "City Series," and especially, since 1955. the highly-competitive "Big Five," which is best described as an annual round-robin basketball tournament (Temple-Villanova-Pennsylvania-St Josephs-LaSalle) that unfolds during the course of each season.

Also of interest, Temple has had extended periods of success across 10 of the past 13 decades, dating back to the 1890s. Temple's first 20-win season (22-5) took place in 1897-98, and [b]the Owls won more than 70% of their games between 1894 and 1902, between 1922 and 1938, between 1952 and 1969, between 1977 and 1982, between 1983 and 2001, and between 2009 and 2013.

.

Memphis (26 NCAA tournaments; six elite eights (record: 3-3), three final fours (record: 2-1), played in two NCAA championship games) should probably be ranked #30 or higher, and a strong case could be made that Houston (23 NCAA tournaments; 5 elite eights (record: 5-0); 5 final fours (record: 2-3), played in two NCAA championship games), and Wichita State (16 NCAA tournaments; four elite eights (record: 2-2) and two final fours) should be ranked higher than they are on this list.

I thought this was a good list. UC right where they should be...not with the blue bloods but in the group just below it.

It caught me eye that 9 of the top 25 are in the States of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Michigan.
A lot of good college basketball in that region.

I saw one of these rankings about ten years ago and Memphis was in the top 25. I guess it depends on who's doing the ranking. Whatever