Since only titles matter, we might as well slide UConn into tier 1 and bump KU down.
Basketball programs by tiers
- Thread starter jhmossy
- Start date
Since only titles matter, we might as well slide UConn into tier 1 and bump KU down.
They’re not tier 1 for the same reason that UCLA isn’t considered #1 all-time.
Virtually all their success was achieved by a few coaches and their best days are way behind them.
5 titles in 4 different decades, and 3 HOF coaches. How many schools can claim that?
I'm not saying they should be number 1 but they're definitely a tier 1 program.
Oklahoma State should be tier 2 in my opinion. 6 final fours and 2 national championships. Iba and Sutton coached there. Gallagher-Iba is one of the best home court advantage in all of college basketball. They’ve obviously had a rough go of it the last 10 years which is why I think they are in tier 3 because of decency bias.
Agreed on their rich tradition but they sucked pretty bad from 1960-1990. That really killed them when it comes to doing all time rankings/tiers.
Most schools can’t say they have had that type of success with one coach. When you have multiple coaches like IU you are in an elite category.
This is fair, I just thought if you were gonna have Cincinnati in that tier you have to have OKST. But you make a good point. They have had periods where they are a top 10 borderline top 5 program. And then they’ve had periods were they’ve been just plain bad.
I should be clear, IU isn't anywhere near tier 1 in the modern area but I'm assuming that this is all time? If not why else would UCLA be tier one? In the modern era I don't even think I would put IU in tier 3.
That said (if it's all time) they haven't been bad enough to be stuck in tier 2 with a bunch of teams with 1-2 titles, those teams haven't done enough to pass them yet.
UK
UNC
UCLA
KANSAS
DUKE
IU
There's my list (in that order)
That said (if it's all time) they haven't been bad enough to be stuck in tier 2 with a bunch of teams with 1-2 titles, those teams haven't done enough to pass them yet.
UK
UNC
UCLA
KANSAS
DUKE
IU
There's my list (in that order)
Wisconsin suffers this fate as well. Didn’t make the tournament for 47 years straight
Some good history before and after that stretch though
Most schools can’t say they have had that type of success with one coach. When you have multiple coaches like IU you are in an elite category.
So what’s keeping UCLA from running away with the title of best program of all time?
Saying Indiana should be on tier 1 isn’t saying they are the best of all time. Can you not comprehend that?
I’m talking about the logic behind the argument. Thought that was fairly obvious.
If we apply the logic you’re using to UCLA, they’re unquestionably the GOAT. Yet no one believes they are. In fact, many don’t even consider them a blueblood at this point. Despite having twice as many titles as some programs that are commonly ranked above them.
Your argument was that IU had all of their success under just a few coaches, (well duh) yet they have 3 hall of fame coaches. More than most other schools.
Nobody is saying that they belong ahead of Kansas or UCLA but they belong in a tier above Virginia for example.
Realistically it's much better to judge basketball programs individually rather than by tiers because the parity is so prevalent.
I’m not saying that I would have a problem with bumping Indiana into the top tier. My point is that it’s not a shock to see it as it is. I think the average CBB fan would arrive at the same list of bluebloods. Until Indiana turns it around.
Personally, I’d break the 2nd tier into two tiers.
I personally think the "blueblood" thing is a little overblown, I really don't care who considers IU a blueblood. It's just much easier to list basketball programs individually rather than by tiers IMHO.
UK
UNC
UCLA
KANSAS
DUKE
IU
Would be my top 6.
So good we’re 1st and 4th SmokinSmile
My foggy memory is saying that Cincy deserves to be ahead of NC State. They were better a long time ago for sure with the title in the 60s being the highlight. NC State was better in the 70s and 80s, but then Cincy has been way ahead of them the past 30 years.
Arkansas I would give a slight edge over NC State. I feel like the floor for NC State has been lower than Arkansas. Arkansas seems more consistently good at least over my lifetime.
The point is it’s splitting hairs. We are talking about tiers not a 1-10 ranking.
And FWIW, Arkansas has a .639 all time win percentage while NC State is .619. But State has obviously played in a much harder conference for decades.
In the last 25 years, NC State has 1 season with less than 15 wins, while Arkansas has 3 seasons with less than 15 wins.
Cincinnati and Arkansas have a much better body of work over the course of their history. I don't think it's really splitting hairs. Let's break it down...
NCAA Tournament Appearances: Cincinnati- 33, Arkansas- 32, NCSU- 27
Round of 32: Arkansas- 21, Cinc 18, NC State- 15
Sweet 16: Cincinnati- 13, NC State- 13, Arkansas- 11
Elite 8: Arkansas- 10, Cincinnati- 8, NC State- 6
Final Four: Arkansas- 6, Cincinnati- 6, NC State- 3
Title Games: Cincinnati- 3, Arkansas- 2, NC State- 2
NCAA Championships: Cincinnati- 2, NC State- 2, Arkansas- 1
Conference Titles: Cincinnati- 25, Arkansas- 16, NC State- 13
Top 10 AP Finishes: Cincinnati-13, Arkansas- 9, NC State- 9
Most of the tiers are actually very consistent with my numbers. Obviously there's a huge difference between the top Tier 2 school (Indiana) and whoever is at the bottom of that list. Look at how the tiers are broken down:
Tier 1: 1-5
Tier 2: 6-19
Tier 3: 20-39
Tier 4: 40-61
Only two schools have wide variances between this ranking and mine - Virginia and San Francisco.
- Virginia: #31 in my ranking. This ranking has them as a top 19 team.
-San Francisco: #25 in my ranking. Undervalued a bit. Would be a Tier 2 in my ranking, instead of Tier 4.
Here are a couple of minor variances:
-Oklahoma State: #16 in my ranking. They actually have a case for being Tier 2.
-LSU: #44 in my ranking. Slightly overvalued
-Alabama: #68 in my ranking. Slightly overvalued for being Tier 4.
Several people have mentioned Arkansas as being overvalued. They're certainly not seen as a dominant program today. However, if tier two is meant for teams in the 6-19 range, they absolutely meet that criteria. 32 Tournament Appearances, 10 Elite 8's, 6 Final Fours, 1 Title, and 16 conference championships. That's very, very good. I should note that I actually left off Princeton and Penn on my original rankings. I evaluated 73 schools, and I omitted both of those schools. So, here are my revised rankings from 26-50.
Tier 1: 1-5
Tier 2: 6-19
Tier 3: 20-39
Tier 4: 40-61
Only two schools have wide variances between this ranking and mine - Virginia and San Francisco.
- Virginia: #31 in my ranking. This ranking has them as a top 19 team.
-San Francisco: #25 in my ranking. Undervalued a bit. Would be a Tier 2 in my ranking, instead of Tier 4.
Here are a couple of minor variances:
-Oklahoma State: #16 in my ranking. They actually have a case for being Tier 2.
-LSU: #44 in my ranking. Slightly overvalued
-Alabama: #68 in my ranking. Slightly overvalued for being Tier 4.
Several people have mentioned Arkansas as being overvalued. They're certainly not seen as a dominant program today. However, if tier two is meant for teams in the 6-19 range, they absolutely meet that criteria. 32 Tournament Appearances, 10 Elite 8's, 6 Final Fours, 1 Title, and 16 conference championships. That's very, very good. I should note that I actually left off Princeton and Penn on my original rankings. I evaluated 73 schools, and I omitted both of those schools. So, here are my revised rankings from 26-50.
Cincinnati and Arkansas have a much better body of work over the course of their history. I don't think it's really splitting hairs. Let's break it down...
NCAA Tournament Appearances: Cincinnati- 33, Arkansas- 32, NCSU- 27
Round of 32: Arkansas- 21, Cinc 18, NC State- 15
Sweet 16: Cincinnati- 13, NC State- 13, Arkansas- 11
Elite 8: Arkansas- 10, Cincinnati- 8, NC State- 6
Final Four: Arkansas- 6, Cincinnati- 6, NC State- 3
Title Games: Cincinnati- 3, Arkansas- 2, NC State- 2
NCAA Championships: Cincinnati- 2, NC State- 2, Arkansas- 1
Conference Titles: Cincinnati- 25, Arkansas- 16, NC State- 13
Top 10 AP Finishes: Cincinnati-13, Arkansas- 9, NC State- 9
The conference titles are tricky because one has played in the ACC and the others...well they haven’t. And of course that also impacts NCAAT bids back when only one per conference.
But your excellent data demonstrates exactly what I was saying: all three should be in the same tier of “good.”
Conference titles kills Maryland in your rankings.Most of the tiers are actually very consistent with my numbers. Obviously there's a huge difference between the top Tier 2 school (Indiana) and whoever is at the bottom of that list. Look at how the tiers are broken down:
Tier 1: 1-5
Tier 2: 6-19
Tier 3: 20-39
Tier 4: 40-61
Only two schools have wide variances between this ranking and mine - Virginia and San Francisco.
- Virginia: #31 in my ranking. This ranking has them as a top 19 team.
-San Francisco: #25 in my ranking. Undervalued a bit. Would be a Tier 2 in my ranking, instead of Tier 4.
Here are a couple of minor variances:
-Oklahoma State: #16 in my ranking. They actually have a case for being Tier 2.
-LSU: #44 in my ranking. Slightly overvalued
-Alabama: #68 in my ranking. Slightly overvalued for being Tier 4.
Several people have mentioned Arkansas as being overvalued. They're certainly not seen as a dominant program today. However, if tier two is meant for teams in the 6-19 range, they absolutely meet that criteria. 32 Tournament Appearances, 10 Elite 8's, 6 Final Fours, 1 Title, and 16 conference championships. That's very, very good. I should note that I actually left off Princeton and Penn on my original rankings. I evaluated 73 schools, and I omitted both of those schools. So, here are my revised rankings from 26-50.
Which isn’t totally fair when comparing the ACC to something like SWC.
I'm not disagreeing, I was just stating our lack of winning the conference hurts us.
Based on their history they've definitely fell off from those standards.
That said 5 sweet 16s, 3 conference titles, and a title game appearance in the last 18 years is a far cry from "dogshit". Nevermind that they were still an elite program until the mid 90s and made 4 more sweet 16s, an elite 8, a few more conference titles, and another final 4. All of that in your "3 decades" timeline.
This idea that IU has been dogshit for 30 years and they are doomed forever just doesn't hold weight.
Just depends where you draw the line, I guess. If you're going to delineate into tiers, there has to be a division somewhere. I have Georgetown, Utah, Florida, and Marquette all below Arkansas - and all above NC State. If the second tier rankings are teams 6-19, then there's good reason for not including State. I think Cincinnati, without question, deserves to be in the "great program" category. Arkansas is a little iffy, but they have a better overall resume than NC State.
Can't say I'm a huge fan of the tiers, though. Indiana is #6 in my ranking. So, they would fit into the second tier. But, I don't think they need to be compared to the likes of Virginia, Georgetown, Arkansas, and even Florida.
I feel like we need to break up a lot of those tiers into new tiers.
I'll take good program right now. I figured the Sidney Lowe years put us off the tiers entirely.
