ADVERTISEMENT

50 Greatest Programs of All-Time (Updated Through 2021)

West Virginia should be higher honestly. Like 14th all time wins. Texas is like 16th all time wins.

I like kstate at 23 tho and higher than both.

My time frame is 1939 - present. Schools didn't start playing the sport in the same time year. 1939 allows for a uniform time period; comparability is much more realistic this way. And, of course, it's the 1st year of the NCAA Tournament.

As it is, West Virginia only has 2 Final Fours and 3 Elite Eights. Those are very modest numbers for a school vying for a spot in the top 25 all-time programs.
 
Updated All-Time Rankings

Greatest-Programs-2023.jpg

Greatest-Programs-2023-26-50.jpg
 
So when did "Modern" start?

Oh I know. It started when Duke started to win?

FWIW, I conducted a poll and asked everyone when they thought the modern era started. 54% of the votes were for 1985, hence the timeframe I used.

Also, Duke was in the top 10 all-time in wins and in the top 10 in Final Fours appearances before K stepped foot on campus. Obviously winning a title changes things, but we already had a great track record.
 
FWIW, I conducted a poll and asked everyone when they thought the modern era started. 54% of the votes were for 1985, hence the timeframe I used.

Also, Duke was in the top 10 all-time in wins and in the top 10 in Final Fours appearances before K stepped foot on campus. Obviously winning a title changes things, but we already had a great track record.
I find no fault with your statement except I rest my case: prior to your modern era Duke had never won a title.

Plus before the tourney expansion only the Conference winner got to go to the NCAA tourney and Duke did not get to go every year like it is now. From 1939 - 1984 (46 years) Duke made the NCAA 9 times, but 36 times in the 38 years of your Modern Era, that is every year except 1995 and 2021.

I still love your stats and I have no problem with the Modern Era.

post script:
"Duke was in the top 10 all-time in wins and in the top 10 in Final Fours appearances before K stepped foot on campus." No titles.
 
Shut your pie hole Bert. The majority of people consider ‘85 the start of the modern era and pretty much everybody agrees it was in the 80s.

Would Bert and the like cry about a modern era ranking if it had Kentucky #1? I don’t think we need to spend much time pondering that one. 😆
 
It'd be nuts to go back to '85 and tell Jordan, Wilt, and countless others their college career doesn't count b/c rule changes or birthdays.
"Sorry Bill Walton, your stats don't count. It was a different time and I know a guy who wasn't born yet ".
 
It'd be nuts to go back to '85 and tell Jordan, Wilt, and countless others their college career doesn't count b/c rule changes or birthdays.
"Sorry Bill Walton, your stats don't count. It was a different time and I know a guy who wasn't born yet ".
Somebody said they don’t count?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
FWIW, I conducted a poll and asked everyone when they thought the modern era started. 54% of the votes were for 1985, hence the timeframe I used.

Also, Duke was in the top 10 all-time in wins and in the top 10 in Final Fours appearances before K stepped foot on campus. Obviously winning a title changes things, but we already had a great track record.
"the timeframe I used"

.....which made the whole thing pointless to begin with.
 
Yale has 18 national titles according to the official NCAA website; Alabama only has 16. Since you seem to think modern rankings are pointless, where would you place Yale on the all-time greatest football programs?
Justifying timeframes doesn't work. Especially when you have to reach to a different sport to try to make a point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert Higginbotha
Yale has 18 national titles according to the official NCAA website; Alabama only has 16. Since you seem to think modern rankings are pointless, where would you place Yale on the all-time greatest football programs?
Bullshit!

On the all time greatest football programs Yale would be about 355th. My high school football team could whip their asses.

Post Script:
My high school football team sucked. But we would beat Yale.
 
Justifying timeframes doesn't work. Especially when you have to reach to a different sport to try to make a point.

You can say it's meaningless all you want, but guess what? People care about this. Someone tagged me, asking me to rank the modern eras. And over 60 people voted on a poll when asked when the modern era began. Considering this forum has fairly low traffic, I'd say 60+ people voting on it is an indication that these numbers are actually very meaningful.

Why do people want to see modern era rankings? Because the differences in the way the game is played from 1958 (when UK won it's 4th national title) to just 3 decades later is massive.

1958
-24 teams in the NCAA Tournament
-4 NCAA wins earns you a national championship
-NCAA regions aren't seeded by a selection committee; regions are determined by geography
-No at large-bids
-No freshmen playing on varsity
-192 schools in D1
-No shot clock
-Very few African-Americans playing
-No 3-point shot

Bullshit!

On the all time greatest football programs Yale would be about 355th. My high school football team could whip their asses.

Post Script:
My high school football team sucked. But we would beat Yale.


I don't disagree. Yale, from 1872-1907, won 25 titles and lost only 16 games. The competition was probably on par with middle school football.

Having modern era rankings in basketball makes sense; many people are naturally interested in those data points, as the past 40 years of college basketball and the NCAA Tournament are vastly different than the first 40+ years of the Tournament.
 
Yale has 18 national titles according to the official NCAA website; Alabama only has 16. Since you seem to think modern rankings are pointless, where would you place Yale on the all-time greatest football programs?
Justifying timeframes doesn't work. Especially when you have to reach to a different sport to try to make a point.
You can say it's meaningless all you want, but guess what? People care about this. Someone tagged me, asking me to rank the modern eras. And over 60 people voted on a poll when asked when the modern era began. Considering this forum has fairly low traffic, I'd say 60+ people voting on it is an indication that these numbers are actually very meaningful.

Why do people want to see modern era rankings? Because the differences in the way the game is played from 1958 (when UK won it's 4th national title) to just 3 decades later is massive.

1958
-24 teams in the NCAA Tournament
-4 NCAA wins earns you a national championship
-NCAA regions aren't seeded by a selection committee; regions are determined by geography
-No at large-bids
-No freshmen playing on varsity
-192 schools in D1
-No shot clock
-Very few African-Americans playing
-No 3-point shot




I don't disagree. Yale, from 1872-1907, won 25 titles and lost only 16 games. The competition was probably on par with middle school football.

Having modern era rankings in basketball makes sense; many people are naturally interested in those data points, as the past 40 years of college basketball and the NCAA Tournament are vastly different than the first 40+ years of the Tournament.
....meaningful to fans of non Blue-blood programs.
 
You can say it's meaningless all you want, but guess what? People care about this. Someone tagged me, asking me to rank the modern eras. And over 60 people voted on a poll when asked when the modern era began. Considering this forum has fairly low traffic, I'd say 60+ people voting on it is an indication that these numbers are actually very meaningful.

Why do people want to see modern era rankings? Because the differences in the way the game is played from 1958 (when UK won it's 4th national title) to just 3 decades later is massive.

1958
-24 teams in the NCAA Tournament
-4 NCAA wins earns you a national championship
-NCAA regions aren't seeded by a selection committee; regions are determined by geography
-No at large-bids
-No freshmen playing on varsity
-192 schools in D1
-No shot clock
-Very few African-Americans playing
-No 3-point shot




I don't disagree. Yale, from 1872-1907, won 25 titles and lost only 16 games. The competition was probably on par with middle school football.

Having modern era rankings in basketball makes sense; many people are naturally interested in those data points, as the past 40 years of college basketball and the NCAA Tournament are vastly different than the first 40+ years of the Tournament.
Why in hell do you pick 1958?

Also I question that in 1958 that there were 192 Division I schools in the NCAA.
I will bet a bunch that it was closer to 100.

Hell Georgetown was not Division 1 along with a bunch of others that you love to include in your 1985 best. The first time I watched Georgetown they were Division II and the game was an exhibition. GEEZE.

Duke was not in the 1958 tourney, why?

How many Duke players in 1958 were black?

How many blacks played in the ACC?

How many blacks played in the Big 10 or Pac 8? Geeze get a life.

Why has the 3 point shot improved NCAA basketball, I don't think that it has.

No at large bids is why Duke did not make the field most years because in most years Duke was an also ran in the weak ACC. To make the NCAA they had to win their damned conference.

Regional set up hurt the SEC and the Big Ten more than most conferences because all the good teams were in their region. Hell the ACC's toughest out would be a team like St. Johns. The West and MidWest produced little. How in hell do you think that UCLA won 10 titles in 12 years? Answer: they played no one of note until the final four.

No freshmen played for any school, so what? Who did that advantage?

No shot clock? Good the shot clock was necessitated by a few coaches, like Dean Smith at North Carolina. You have never seen a Rupp coached team but Rupp never used the clock as he invented fast break basketball, run and gun. The ACC invented the slow down shit and the shot clock was placed into the rules to stop such crap.

So don't come to me expecting me to accept your thesis that the only reason that Duke and UNC did not win is because of the structure of the NCAA tourney. It was because UNC and Duke put out a poor product. It could be that UNC and Duke did not rack up a bunch of titles was because they could not compete.

On the football Yale can't hold Alabama's jock strap and you damned well know it.

Why do people want to see modern era rankings?
I can tell you why. Their teams over time sucked. It is really easy. After 1985 their teams faired far better. All the involved teams played under the same rules, but you propose that it only helped Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, Ohio State and Indiana.
 
....meaningful to fans of non Blue-blood programs.

Nah, it's meaningful to plenty of them too.

The crusade to end timeframing is led by people who want to pretend to still be on top of the world when they're not.
 
Wow, there are some butthurt UK fans posting just because the choice was made to present the results multiple ways. Hmm….
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExitFlagger
Wow, there are some butthurt UK fans posting just because the choice was made to present the results multiple ways. Hmm….
I think most are fine with multiple ways. We just find entertainment in it and understand why some do it.

Call it like it is. If you want to only include last year, fine, last 10 years/25, etc., fine. We know where you stand and understand why.

There's nothing wrong with bringing up angles that suit the seller. Some use it all time, others need a crutch.
If it weren't for time frames most fan bases would be chasing one team and saying stuff like "We're gaining on you". That's not very exciting so they make up eras that fit a narrative. I have no problem with fans searching and finding joy where they can.

Just note, it's noted.
 
Last edited:
I think most are fine with multiple ways. We just find entertainment in it and understand why some do it.

Call it like it is. If you want to only include last year, fine, last 10 years/25, etc., fine. We know where you stand and understand why.

There's nothing wrong with bringing up angles that suit the seller. Some use it all time, others need a crutch.
If it weren't for time frames most fan bases would be chasing one team and saying stuff like "We're gaining on you". That's not very exciting so they make up eras that fit a narrative. I have no problem with fans searching and finding joy where they can.

Just note, it's noted.

"Make up eras?" Nobody made up anything. Modern era is a common term. It wasn't invented by dukedevilz.

But on the subject of made-up eras, remember "the Calipari era?" Timeframing's for losers, but let's compare numbers since 2009! If timeframing's for fans of less accomplished teams, why do you do it? You've disproven your own theory.

Ever notice that it's only Kentucky fans who have a problem with modern era rankings? Apparently everyone outside of Kentucky has an agenda. Then again, we're talking about a fanbase that thinks the NCAA and SEC refs want to take them down...😆

Reality is that everybody timeframes. Some just like to pretend they're "above" it. I already gave one example of the double standard. Another is JC calling Indiana "Irrelevant U" or whatever. That's timeframing, because they're still obviously relevant in the all-time discussion.

Frankly, Kentucky fans should embrace timeframing. Without timeframing, not many would consider Kentucky the GOAT. The only reason that many rank them above UCLA is they've done more in the modern era. If their success in the modern era were similar, would anyone take the program with three fewer titles?

Like I've said, I'll talk about all-time or modern era. Like most people. Kentucky fans are the only ones trying to limit the discussion. We say there's room for both, but that's not enough because you want all the attention.

Do you think any of you would complain about a modern era ranking if it had Kentucky #1?
 
Last edited:
I think most are fine with multiple ways. We just find entertainment in it and understand why some do it.

Call it like it is. If you want to only include last year, fine, last 10 years/25, etc., fine. We know where you stand and understand why.

There's nothing wrong with bringing up angles that suit the seller. Some use it all time, others need a crutch.
If it weren't for time frames most fan bases would be chasing one team and saying stuff like "We're gaining on you". That's not very exciting so they make up eras that fit a narrative. I have no problem with fans searching and finding joy where they can.

Just note, it's noted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExitFlagger
"Make up eras?" Nobody made up anything. Modern era is a common term. It wasn't invented by dukedevilz.

But on the subject of made-up eras, remember "the Calipari era?" Timeframing's for losers, but let's compare numbers since 2009! If timeframing's for fans of less accomplished teams, why do you do it? You've disproven your own theory.

Ever notice that it's only Kentucky fans who have a problem with modern era rankings? Apparently everyone outside of Kentucky has an agenda. Then again, we're talking about a fanbase that thinks the NCAA and SEC refs want to take them down...😆

Reality is that everybody timeframes. It Some just like to pretend they're "above" it. I already gave one example of the double standard. Another is JC calling Indiana "Irrelevant U" or whatever. That's timeframing, because they're still obviously relevant in the all-time discussion.

Frankly, Kentucky fans should embrace timeframing. Without timeframing, not many would consider Kentucky the GOAT. The only reason that many rank them above UCLA is they've done more in the modern era. If their success in the modern era were similar, would anyone take the program with three fewer titles?

Like I've said, I'll talk about all-time or modern era. Like most people. Kentucky fans are the only ones trying to limit the discussion. We say there's room for both, but that's not enough because you want all the attention.

Do you think any of you would complain about a modern era ranking if it had Kentucky #1?
Did you read my post? I said there's nothing wrong with it and understand why. If you want to use selective eras that's fine. I get it. Everyone here gets it.
 
Last edited:
lol at Kentucky fans that are bothered by this (not Lurk).

You guys do realize that modern era ≠ greatest of all-time, right?

People rank eras all the time. Does it bother you when someone ranks the best programs of the past 10 years? Are you going to courter, "Irrelevant!" How about when someone ranks the best programs for this century? "Irrelevant!" Again, modern era doesn't mean "the greatest of all-time" it means the greatest of the modern era lol.
 
"Make up eras?" Nobody made up anything. Modern era is a common term. It wasn't invented by dukedevilz.

But on the subject of made-up eras, remember "the Calipari era?" Timeframing's for losers, but let's compare numbers since 2009! If timeframing's for fans of less accomplished teams, why do you do it? You've disproven your own theory.

Ever notice that it's only Kentucky fans who have a problem with modern era rankings? Apparently everyone outside of Kentucky has an agenda. Then again, we're talking about a fanbase that thinks the NCAA and SEC refs want to take them down...😆

Reality is that everybody timeframes. It Some just like to pretend they're "above" it. I already gave one example of the double standard. Another is JC calling Indiana "Irrelevant U" or whatever. That's timeframing, because they're still obviously relevant in the all-time discussion.

Frankly, Kentucky fans should embrace timeframing. Without timeframing, not many would consider Kentucky the GOAT. The only reason that many rank them above UCLA is they've done more in the modern era. If their success in the modern era were similar, would anyone take the program with three fewer titles?

Like I've said, I'll talk about all-time or modern era. Like most people. Kentucky fans are the only ones trying to limit the discussion. We say there's room for both, but that's not enough because you want all the attention.

Do you think any of you would complain about a modern era ranking if it had Kentucky #1?
If you're basing a conversation on Cal (while he's been UK's coach), you numbskull, what the hell is somebody supposed to do, talk about what he did at UMASS?

....and if you're going to take a stab at what I've said about IU, it's "IUsedtobegood".... which doesn't take away their relevancy like you're trying to say.

"bringing up angles that suit the seller." Lurk summed up all you timeframing losers in this single phrase.
 
Also I question that in 1958 that there were 192 Division I schools in the NCAA.
I will bet a bunch that it was closer to 100.

Looks like I miscounted. There were only 183 schools competing in D1 during the 1958 season. Here are the standings from that year.

And you're free to say the Mideast Region was harder; you're entitled to your opinion. But, from 1954-1974, if I exclude UCLA's run, all four regions came away with 3 titles. 1954 was the first year of the ACC - and 1974 was the last year where just one conference representative could qualify for the tournament. The mideast wasn't pumping out champions every year.

East- 3 (La Salle, UNC, NC State)
Mideast- 3 (Kentucky, Ohio State, Loyola Chicago)
Midwest- 3 (Cincinnati, Cincinnati, UTEP)
West- 3 (San Francisco, San Francisco, California)


Also, was curious to look at UCLA's performances in the Regionals versus the Final Four. Consider the fact that they were 205-5 (97.6% winning percentage) during a 7-year stretch. Didn't matter who they were playing, they were going to win.

Single-Digit Games:
Regionals: 4/18
Final Four: 5/18

Average Margin of Victory
Regionals: 17.7
Final Four: 14.2
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert Higginbotha
lol at Kentucky fans that are bothered by this (not Lurk).

You guys do realize that modern era ≠ greatest of all-time, right?

People rank eras all the time. Does it bother you when someone ranks the best programs of the past 10 years? Are you going to courter, "Irrelevant!" How about when someone ranks the best programs for this century? "Irrelevant!" Again, modern era doesn't mean "the greatest of all-time" it means the greatest of the modern era lol.

What's happened in the last 40 years doesn't matter, devilz!

24e55346685c4f8b0b02a9cd0867d1e9.gif
 
If you're basing a conversation on Cal (while he's been UK's coach), you numbskull, what the hell is somebody supposed to do, talk about what he did at UMASS?

LOL. That's the whole point. To even bring up "The Calipari era" is timeframing. You might notice I never said there's anything wrong with that. That's what clowns like you are saying, remember? If someone brings up numbers from the Self era, or any other limited timeframe, you're there like a shark to blood, foaming at the mouth (kinda like now).

....and if you're going to take a stab at what I've said about IU, it's "IUsedtobegood".... which doesn't take away their relevancy like you're trying to say.

Ahhh, I was thinking you had said that but wasn't sure. Even better. 🤣

Quit timeframing. They're the program with 5 titles that ranks near the top 5 all time. That's all that matters, remember?

"bringing up angles that suit the seller." Lurk summed up all you timeframing losers in this single phrase.

You're a middle aged man throwing tantrums over the fact that someone made a modern era ranking on a college basketball board. Might want to rethink who the loser is. 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz
LOL. That's the whole point. To even bring up "The Calipari era" is timeframing. You might notice I never said there's anything wrong with that. That's what clowns like you are saying, remember? If someone brings up numbers from the Self era, or any other limited timeframe, you're there like a shark to blood, foaming at the mouth (kinda like now).



Ahhh, I was thinking you had said that but wasn't sure. Even better. 🤣

Quit timeframing. They're the program with 5 titles that ranks near the top 5 all time. That's all that matters, remember?



You're a middle aged man throwing tantrums over the fact that someone made a modern era ranking on a college basketball board. Might want to rethink who the loser is. 🤣
No need....losers use timeframing to overcome achievements they don't have.

I'm still not taking IU out of their status among the Bluebloods. You sure seem like you want to, however. Calling a rival something like IUsedtobegood isn't what you're trying to say it is.

Your KU program is among the elite. They are a Blueblood. BUT... they don't have a spot on the pedestal at the top. It's just that simple.

24-11.
8-4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert Higginbotha
No need....losers use timeframing to overcome achievements they don't have.

I'm still not taking IU out of their status among the Bluebloods. You sure seem like you want to, however. Calling a rival something like IUsedtobegood isn't what you're trying to say it is.

Your KU program is among the elite. They are a Blueblood. BUT... they don't have a spot on the pedestal at the top. It's just that simple.

24-11.
8-4.
Pedestal is tough.
I guess the two that have #1 in each of @dukedevilz research qualify, but who's the thrid?

I have to go with UNC. UNC has an argument for all time and the modern era.
 
ADVERTISEMENT