50 Greatest Programs of All-Time (Updated Through 2021)
- Thread starter dukedevilz
- Start date
Without a doubt. They had a lull in the 90's and early 2000's, but they've been a consistent program for the most part. Well deserving of being in the top 25.
You have done a wonderful job (with a lot or work) on this. One thing I want throw out there... Before segregation in the South a lot of SEC schools would not participate in the NCAA Tournament. Several years UK went when other schools would not. I don't know if that would impact your ratings any more than UNC creating classes for athletes and acting like they are as pure as the driven snow though.
This is true. Don't know if it would materially effect the numbers. I think Mississippi State was hit the hardest. They won the SEC in '59, '61, and '62. They didn't compete in the NCAAT in any of those years. Easily could have been a Final Four team that was competing for a national title.
Mississippi State did not win the SEC in 1962. They shared the title with UK.
Kentucky is not responsible for racism in Mississippi.
Didn't say they won it outright, but it's still an SEC Title. And I think they would have received the automatic bid, as they had the head-to-head edge on Kentucky.
Still gotta feel for that program a little. They were ranked #3 in the final poll in '59, and #4 in '62. Those are the only two years in program history where they finished in the top five. So, I think they suffered more than any other program from the segregation laws.
As I said it was not Kentucky's problem and no I don't feel for them.
Why did they turn down the invite? We know the answer. It is not UK's fault that they did not go, so they screwed themselves.
What about the other 45 UK titles?
Bailey Howell was a great player at MSU. Bama stayed home at lease once that I remember. I think... Hell, I'm old...
Last edited:
Well, you do have to feel sorry for the players. They were denied a trip of a lifetime. I would bet if you polled them and every individual associated with the program they didn't agree with the decisions a bunch of politicians made.
Colorado has been to 6 Elite 8's and 2 Final Fours - and they still didn't make the cut for the top 50. A pedestrian program over the course of a half century will do that to you.
Maryland had some great teams when Lefty was there. Problem was UNC, Duke, and Virginia were really good also. JMO, but they have to be close to top 25.
Maryland obviously would have had a good run in '74 (that was the only time they had a top 10 team to miss the tournament). Their complete body of work over the past 80 years isn't overly impressive, however. They've only been to the Elite 8 four times (73, 75, 01, 02). A lot of the same players on the 73 & 75 squads - and the 01 & 02 squads. No other school in my top 25 has less than six Elite 8 appearances. They've been in the top 10 of the final AP Poll just 8 times. Certainly a very competitive basketball school, they've just not been elite for long periods of time.
That ACC tournament knocked a lot of good teams out of the tournament back in the day. Some of those schools played great basketball all year, stumbled in the tournament and stayed home.
I'm gonna bump this up. I think that from 1950 until around 1970 the NCAA tournament was an exclusive deal. There were a lot of schools that had great teams, but to qualify was far more diificult than today's, watered down bunch of posers.
I do know that Kentucky State University (an NAIA school at that time) had Travis Grant, and Elmore Smith. They went something like 33-0. Beat the dog crap of any team put in front of them, and both guys ended up in the NBA. Grant was 6'8" and if he passed mid-court would kill you with a jumper. Ended up playing serverl year in the league. Elmore would not allow a shot anywhere near the paint. 7 foot, ran like a deer and had a lot of bad ass. At one time he held the single game shot blocking record for the NBA.
I went to Frankfort, KY to watch them seveal times. No doubt they were the best team in Kentucky during their time there.
So back to Maryland, they really haven't missed out on that many opportunities. In 1954, they finished 20th in the AP Poll. With only 24 teams in the tournament, they would have been the underdog in just about every game. The ACC Champ also lost in the regional semifinals.
The 1972 Maryland team could have done damage. They finished 14th in the AP Poll. So maybe a Sweet 16 or Elite 8? Obviously the '74 team missing the tournament was a big deal, as that was largely the reason why multiple bids from the same conference were allowed in the NCAAT the next year. The '74 Maryland team was too good to not be in the tournament. Legitimate Final Four/Title contender. Overall, though, no. I wouldn't say missing the tournament three times, when ranked, has largely impacted Maryland's overall resume. A little bit, yes. But, they weren't consistently ranked.
I've added a few metrics to my database. It now includes NIT points, 2 points for a top 10 finish (AP Final Poll), 1 point for top 25, 1 point for a winning percentage of .800 or better, -1 for below .500, and -2 for below .300. Probably still not perfect, but it will do for now. I went 75-deep, just for the heck of it. I evaluated 90 teams total, so perhaps I'm missing a few teams in the 51-75 range.
Double-click on the screenshots to enlarge.
The above table doesn't explain how the NIT points were calculated. I included the NIT results for the years between 1939-1956. Here are the top 20 NIT teams from that period of time.
Double-click on the screenshots to enlarge.
The above table doesn't explain how the NIT points were calculated. I included the NIT results for the years between 1939-1956. Here are the top 20 NIT teams from that period of time.
Looks legit.I've added a few metrics to my database. It now includes NIT points, 2 points for a top 10 finish (AP Final Poll), 1 point for top 25, 1 point for a winning percentage of .800 or better, -1 for below .500, and -2 for below .300. Probably still not perfect, but it will do for now. I went 75-deep, just for the heck of it. I evaluated 90 teams total, so perhaps I'm missing a few teams in the 51-75 range.
Double-click on the screenshots to enlarge.
The above table doesn't explain how the NIT points were calculated. I included the NIT results for the years between 1939-1956. Here are the top 20 NIT teams from that period of time.
also, how much credit are you giving them for the majority of their conference championships, are from when they were in a 2nd, or 3rd tier conference like the Metro?
I'm just struggling to understand how they could have more points in the conference championship portion then IU does. When all of IU's was from the B1G, but almost all of UL's are from the Metro, or conference USA?
I'm just struggling to understand how they could have more points in the conference championship portion then IU does. When all of IU's was from the B1G, but almost all of UL's are from the Metro, or conference USA?
Don't sell the Metro Conference so short. It was a really good conference. UL, Cincy, Memphis, FLorida State ....Tulane, So.Miss, VaTech had some good teams. During its heyday, the Metro was consider a major conference...
Also, C-USA wasn't chopped liver, either.
I don't believe in revisionist history. All vacated stats are given full credit.
Conference champs from power conferences receive the full 5 points. If a conference champ from a non-power conference isn't a top 25 team - AND if there's not at least one other school that's in the top 25, then they only receive 4 points. Hence, Louisville actually had 13 points deducted. This was the 2nd post in the thread.
Louisville won that title fair and square. In fact they won it after losing a man to a broken leg. If anyone doubts it I have most of those games on Bluray. Eyeroll
I suppose that is the only basketball title removed by the crooked NCAA. Many should have been if the same standards had been applied evenly. Whores, ACT tests, jewelry and academics are treated differently.
To my knowledge that did not happen often. I remember Mississippi State. Was there another?
I don't think that it would have any impact.
Illinois getting drug for tourney success. Look at Wisconsin. Wins and losses aren't irrelevant. 200 more wins in 7 fewer seasons.
Kind of an impossible task, especially since conferences aren't equal. Subjectivity is high. But, look at post #177. I added a few more metrics. Illinois finished at #25, while Wisconsin dropped to #40. Also, no points are awarded until 1939, the first year of the tournament.
That looks fair. No real complaint about Illinois being there after the past decade. Wisconsin has been a historically terrible program until recent though, so seeing them that close was a red flag.
This is true. Since 1939, they've had 36 losing seasons and 20 seasons where they had a winning percentage below .300. Both of those marks are the worst for any program in the top 50. It's crazy how consistent they've been the past two decades. Made it to 20 of the past 21 NCAA Tournaments, which accounts for all but four of their tournament appearances. Wisconsin has actually been to the tournament more times this century than both Kentucky (2009, 2013) and North Carolina (2002,2003, 2010). The only schools that have made it every time this century are Kansas, Duke, Michigan State, and Gonzaga.
I've included 14 metrics on this spreadsheet. Not sure if I can really add much else to the equation. I think I could maybe refine how the points are allocated, so I'm open to adjusting these numbers in the future.
Honestly, it's subjective at this point. I think you have a good model for what you're looking at and trying to accomplish. Do you do predictive models too?
Predictive models, like gauging how a team will perform in the upcoming season? Trying to develop an algorithm of some kind could be interesting. But, not sure I'm there yet. Is that something you've thought about doing?
I've done it for different applications, but I haven't done it for CBB yet. I definitely would like to get into that.
They won SEC titles playing against no black player?
wjat makes you think they would have won any games in the NCAA or NIT?
There is a bigger point difference between 5 (Kansas) and 6 (Louisville) than there is a difference between 6 (Louisville) and 20 (Marquette).I've added a few metrics to my database. It now includes NIT points, 2 points for a top 10 finish (AP Final Poll), 1 point for top 25, 1 point for a winning percentage of .800 or better, -1 for below .500, and -2 for below .300. Probably still not perfect, but it will do for now. I went 75-deep, just for the heck of it. I evaluated 90 teams total, so perhaps I'm missing a few teams in the 51-75 range.
Double-click on the screenshots to enlarge.
The above table doesn't explain how the NIT points were calculated. I included the NIT results for the years between 1939-1956. Here are the top 20 NIT teams from that period of time.
I think that makes it pretty clear that there are really only 5 bluebloods.
2 questions.... #1. How old are you?? #2. Read a little unless you can't.
Didn’t know Duke had the best win% all-time in NCAA Tournament history!Relatively similar. It's schools that had most of their success in the 40's and 50's that really see a boost (i.e. Wyoming and San Francisco).
Number one they always get a good seeding even if it is not deserved.
Anyway: If they are so great why did it take them until 1991 to win a title? The NCAA tourney started in what 1939?
You’re seriously arguing a fact? Yes, the NCAA Tournament started in 1939. Yes, Duke won its first Natty in 1991 and YES, Duke has the best win% of all-time in the NCAA Tournament! Argue with yourself, sir!
Similar threads
