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.
