50 Greatest Programs of All-Time

UL_1986

Well-Known Member
Sep 13, 2018
6,226
4,496
113
Not a fan of doing that, actually. It's revisionist history (you'll notice I also haven't removed any vacated titles or Final Fours). And it's very subjective. I mean, some schools did things that were way more egregious than others. I can't imagine actually deliberating on a system which delineates between the magnitude of each scandal.
Lol tell UK fans that. “It happened years ago”!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

uncfan in ky

Well-Known Member
Oct 23, 2008
4,957
2,647
113
No need. You worry about them enough.
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:

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
I guess so. But they didn't "earn" it in the traditional sense, by winning the ACC Tournament.
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

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
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.
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.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
@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?
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.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,531
11,044
113
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.
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.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
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
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.
 

lurkeraspect84

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2014
21,320
18,193
113
Team
Kentucky
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.
 

Bert Higginbotha

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2003
17,784
3,524
113
Smiths Grove, Kentucky
kentucky.rivals.com
Go troll some other thread. Someone took a ton of time to do this, no need for your crap to clutter it up.
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.
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.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
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?
 

schoonerwest

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Apr 5, 2006
14,139
6,891
113
Midland, TX
Team
Kansas
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 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.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,171
6,560
113
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:
  • Like
Reactions: Bert Higginbotha

Bert Higginbotha

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 9, 2003
17,784
3,524
113
Smiths Grove, Kentucky
kentucky.rivals.com
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84

EvilMonkeyInTheCloset

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2008
36,370
8,122
113
And here's how it breaks down by the current conference alignment.

Big Ten (9):
6. Indiana
10. Ohio State
11. Michigan State
12. Michigan
26. Illinois
28. Wisconsin
34. Purdue
35. Maryland
47. Iowa

ACC (7):
3. North Carolina
5. Duke
7. Louisville
14. Syracuse
22. NC State
30. Notre Dame
31. Virginia

Big 12 (6):
4. Kansas
16. Oklahoma State
23. Kansas State
24. Oklahoma
27. Texas
39. West Virginia

Big East (6):
9. Villanova
18. Georgetown
21. Marquette
38. St.John's
44. Butler
49. Xavier

Pac-12 (6):
2. UCLA
15. Arizona
19. Utah
41. California
43. Oregon
50. Stanford

American (5):
8. UConn
13. Cincinnati
29. Memphis
36. Houston
37. Temple

SEC (4):
1. Kentucky
17. Arkansas
20. Florida
42. LSU

WCC (3):
25. San Francisco
33. Gonzaga
48. BYU

Mountain West (2):
32. UNLV
45. Wyoming

A-10 (1):
46. Saint Joseph's

Con-USA (1):
40. Western Kentucky
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. :)
 

kelley2403

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
2,199
2,115
113
Hanover County, Va
Team
Virginia
Dude, that had to take a lot of time and effort to compile; thanks for taking it on. Very cool! (And not just because Kentucky is #1, we already knew that, lol.)

A little surprised at Maryland being so far down the list; not sure why but I would have thought they would have been a little higher, but your numbers don't lie.

Again kudos sir.
I was surprised with Maryland also. I would have thought they would have been ahead of us.