Worry? We're #1!
BTW,I never said rich until just now. I said I agree with you. (post #57)
Holy f7ck you are one bitter person.
*sorry @dukedevilz
50 Greatest Programs of All-Time (Updated Through 2021)
- Thread starter dukedevilz
- Start date
BTW,I never said rich until just now. I said I agree with you. (post #57)
Holy f7ck you are one bitter person.
*sorry @dukedevilz
Feels good to be at the top. It’s really rustled some of the posters ITT
You subtract points for probations & you wont be #1.... which explains why some don’t like the idea
.
No thanks.
Not going through the trouble of looking up how many probations each program has received
No need. You worry about them enough.
We can all agree with this. If only the NCAA was fair across the board. If that was the case a lot of programs would be fvcked including yours.
Almost as much as you worry about me.
I guess some can’t read & didn’t realize that I said UNC should lose points also.... but I guess that’s just me trolling.
Last edited:
Go troll some other thread. Someone took a ton of time to do this, no need for your crap to clutter it up.
Illinois dropped a bit since the Sagrain/ESPN 2000 rankings.
Well we did earn it. It was declared by the league and we were recorded as the official ACC Champion. It just wasn’t the traditional way of earning it.
It’s like a sprinter who earns 1st place after the person who crossed the line first was disqualified for going out of their lane. The get the gold medal. They get the distinction of winning the race in the record books. They just didn’t win it in the traditional sense.
@dukedevilz it would be impossible to do your conference breakdown due to conference shifting. ie UL being in the Big East.
@dukedevilz why are UK and UCLA's R32 appearances lower than S16 appearances? They'd have to at least be the same. Or is the # you're using not total appearances?
Illinois dropped a bit since the Sagrain/ESPN 2000 rankings.
Yeah they did and so did St. John's.
A Duke fan said that the idea would be stupid. A DUKE FAN. Sounds like someone is bitter because they are in 3rd place. Don't worry you'll catch UCLA one day.
Didn’t there used to be byes or something?
I think we should make this thread a sticky. It's got UK ranked as the #1 program of all time and a perfect example of what happens in every thread where UK is at least part of the subject matter… .butthurt rival fans, including one lying ass that cheers for the biggest fraud program in the country.
Except the race never started. And you still had 7 other competitors in the race - none of which were ever disqualified.
You guys won the ACC regular season title, and that's what really matters in my book. It's far more impressive winning a conference outright over the course of 2-3 months as opposed to winning three games in three days. You earned the 5 points. Just don't really care to add one more point - because guess what? Dozens of other schools would have earned one more point. And did other power conferences even award schools like Kentucky, Kansas, and Oregon as the automatic qualifiers? If they didn't, that would create one more inconsistency.
Because the Round of 32 didn't exist until 1975. That's the first year where multiple bids could come from the same conference - that decision by the NCAA was made shortly after the Maryland-NC State ACC Tittle game in '74, which precluded a top 5 team from competing in the NCAAT.
From 1953-1974 you had 22-25 teams in the tournament. I give credit for a R32 game if you played in the first round, which is essentially a R32 game. UCLA and Kentucky frequently had byes until the Regional Semifinals. Also, recall that from 1939-1950, you only had 8 teams in the tournament. So I don't give teams credit for the rounds that are missed. You do receive 1 point for every NCAA Tournament appearance, however.
Yeah I don’t care about the point. I asked because I was curious but like we both said it’s just 1 point. Wouldn’t make any difference.
I just more was speaking about how it was funny that both statements could be true. I don’t know if other power conferences did the same or not. But whether it was traditional or not, FSU did indeed “qualify” for the 2020 NCAAT, along with any other auto bid winner. It’s gonna be one of those weird trivia questions in 25 years.
Funny thing is, even if UNC net gained 200 points with outrageous 100 point deductions, Kentucky would still be in the lead. Yes, UNC would temporarily have a 12-point lead. But, not after the NIT results from 1939-56 are included.
And a 300 point deduction is essentially 4 national tiles + 1 final four. Seems perfectly reasonable for three years of probation.
dukedevilz did a wonderful job on this thread. He spent his time and developed a wonderful spread sheet on the various programs.
Let us argue about it, but praise the guy who built it. I would like to copy it, with permission, and used it in the future.
Why do we not, as a board, try to discuss the flaws and come up with a better plan. That would be beneficial.
To my mind dukedevilz did a damned good job the first time.
Wow. This got pinned. Okay, that motivates me to want to keep the thread active, which means I'm more likely to include additional metrics to the table.
I want to include the NIT Results from 1939-56. I think the champ should only gets 10 points, runner-up gets 5 points, semifinalists get 3 points, quaterfinalists get 2 points, and 1st round gets 1 point. This is the equivalent of FF-E8-S16-R32-R64. Recall that a lot of teams were double-dipping in the NCAAT and NIT. By 1951, all major conference champions were required to compete in the NCAAT. However, you still had a lot of top 5/10 independent schools that had no obligation to the NCAAT. I think those schools from the 50's deserve credit, too.
The other metric I want to include would be bonus/negative points, based on winning percentage. Do you all think that should be on a cumulative basis, or a season-to-season basis?
I want to include the NIT Results from 1939-56. I think the champ should only gets 10 points, runner-up gets 5 points, semifinalists get 3 points, quaterfinalists get 2 points, and 1st round gets 1 point. This is the equivalent of FF-E8-S16-R32-R64. Recall that a lot of teams were double-dipping in the NCAAT and NIT. By 1951, all major conference champions were required to compete in the NCAAT. However, you still had a lot of top 5/10 independent schools that had no obligation to the NCAAT. I think those schools from the 50's deserve credit, too.
The other metric I want to include would be bonus/negative points, based on winning percentage. Do you all think that should be on a cumulative basis, or a season-to-season basis?
I am absolutely not the person to come up with how we do it but what do you think we could do to award points to those years before the NCAA tournament? Because there's like 40 years of basketball missing here. Can't really call it all time if 1/3 of the sports history isn't considered.
And yes I ask this as a fan of the first blueblood who would probably have Michigan like football championships had they been awarded to team pre-tournament. I mean if we're including the NIT we should absolutely include seasons that aren't otherwise being counted. It could just be as simple as awarding points to conference winners and measuring wins up to that point? I don't know, like I said I'm not the guy to determine any of that.
Problem is, there's so many issues when it comes to comparability Pre-1939. The conferences weren't equal in size. The Southen Conference, for example, had 15 conference members. The Yankee Conference had only 5 members (Rhode Island and UConn were members). There were no national rankings. No national tournaments sanctioned by the NCAA. Then, you had teams like Temple that existed forever. Villanova, a school in the same city, is highly regarded, yet Temple has in edge in all-time wins, mostly due to the fact that they have 26 more seasons of basketball.
I'm only including the NIT because a lot of potential national champions and final four teams did not compete in the NCAA. Would be a huge disfavor for title contenders and top 5 teams to not garner any points during those years, especially while other schools in the NCAAT are all collecting a substantial amount. The NCAA Tournament had only 8 teams in the field until 1951 anyway.
Last edited:
Some of these questions are above my pay grade.
I can suggest that the NIT be counted when it mattered. If I come up with the dates that will add my pro-Kentucky bias; so, the dates should be picked by folks who are totally removed from bias.
On the Conference Championships: The SEC always crowned their champion on the conference best record. The ACC always crowned their champion on the tourney. The Big Ten always crowned their champion on the conference best record. There must be a way to “average” both.
So maybe we count all conference winners for winning the actual record in the conference and then at some arbitrary time we can consider, or add in, which Conferences chose their "automatic" team by the conference title winner.
We can have both worlds. The ACC stuck with the tourney winner and the Big Ten and SEC stuck with the best record in the conference until the NCAA decided the automatic team into the NCAA was the tourney winner (That was arbitrary but the NCAA has the fvcking power to do it).
So, we just come up with a way to consider which system is best or we, in our model, consider both.
I love this type crap.
I can suggest that the NIT be counted when it mattered. If I come up with the dates that will add my pro-Kentucky bias; so, the dates should be picked by folks who are totally removed from bias.
On the Conference Championships: The SEC always crowned their champion on the conference best record. The ACC always crowned their champion on the tourney. The Big Ten always crowned their champion on the conference best record. There must be a way to “average” both.
So maybe we count all conference winners for winning the actual record in the conference and then at some arbitrary time we can consider, or add in, which Conferences chose their "automatic" team by the conference title winner.
We can have both worlds. The ACC stuck with the tourney winner and the Big Ten and SEC stuck with the best record in the conference until the NCAA decided the automatic team into the NCAA was the tourney winner (That was arbitrary but the NCAA has the fvcking power to do it).
So, we just come up with a way to consider which system is best or we, in our model, consider both.
I love this type crap.
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
Bleh. The 2000s and portions of the 2010s really killed Iowa's position in college basketball. There was a point in recent history where Iowa was among the top 20 all-time in wins.
Iowa still made the tournament consistently in the '90s, but it was evident they weren't gonna get the flashy NBA recruits that all these other schools were getting and that's kind where the trend, or misconception I should say, of kids not wanting to go to Iowa because it was too cold and not a destination school began.
Hell just a decade prior, Iowa was consistently a contender in the Big Ten even though they never won a conference title in the '80s with teams like Indiana, Purdue, Michigan and Illinois as top tier programs nationally at the time.
It was a costly and unfortunate presumption that people and recruits actually bought into the bullsh** that a place like Iowa was not a worthwhile destination in sports because it was boring and too cold, while programs like Nebraska were thriving in football in the '80s and '90s, and Indiana and Purdue's campuses were somehow better fits for recruits willing to brave the cold, harsh boring winters...............
And while Iowa still has its own struggles trying to win recruits to Iowa City in an attempt to bring its sports programs back into contender status, it's funny that this idea that Iowa is boring and stale and too cold to handle if you're from a warm weather state has long since been killed off.
Lastly, I just wanted to add, it's also unfortunate that the only thing that kept Iowa from being ahead of St. Joseph's is that you made the cut off 1939, which took away two of our conference championships compared to St. Joe's 23 that helped them erase all the lack of tournament success they've had compared to Iowa...................................just sayin.
I was surprised with Maryland also. I would have thought they would have been ahead of us.
Just noticed Michigan is 1-7 in the championship game. That's rough. Didn't realize the Wolverines had made it there 7 times. 7-1 in the FF is impressive though.
E8 is UKs kryptonite.
E8 is UKs kryptonite.
Last edited:
Similar threads
