I wouldn't have a problem with IU being tier 1. As much as they're UK's rival, I actually think they should be. 5 titles/4 decades/3 HOF, earns it imo.
Basketball programs by tiers
- Thread starter jhmossy
- Start date
Trust me, I have no beef with Indiana, and I definitely wouldn't say they've been dogshit for 30 years. But I would say they've been mediocre for 25. That's a long time. That's the length of some of our lifetimes. They also weren't very good over the first 30+ years of their history. Or throughout much of the rest of the period before Knight. But they did have a few great years under McCracken and were consistently good under Knight. The best factor in Indiana's favor is that, historically, they're extremely efficient in final four outings. When they go, they win the damn thing. But you know who else does? Uconn. In fact, their histories are very similar. Uconn has one less title and a few less final fours, but the same number of elite eights and a higher all-time win %. Similar numbers in other areas.
And let's face it, if Uconn were to win the title next year, their history would be as good or better than Indiana's. You'd probably have to rank them higher due to having so much recent success. But they still wouldn't crack tier 1 due to lack of consistency. Same issue for Indiana. They're 20th in all-time win %, with half the final fours as the tier 1 schools.
I agree they've largely been mediocre, but there's a big difference between mediocre and "dogshit".
Do you agree that IU is the 6th best program of all time? Because that's all I'm arguing.
It would be hard to have any program above IU for 6th.
Louisville has always been 7 to me. Then you get to Michigan State, UConn, and I don't think those schools have passed IU.
Louisville has always been 7 to me. Then you get to Michigan State, UConn, and I don't think those schools have passed IU.
Yeah, I think they have the best argument for #6. I'm just saying that there are valid reasons that they wouldn't be included in the top tier. Consistency is the biggest factor. There's an element of randomness to the tourney (see Uconn's last two titles), but there's no randomness involved in winning a ton of games year after year.
Yeah I totally agree that lines have to go somewhere. These particular lines just seem a bit odd. Like you said, Indiana doesn’t seem to fit with the others.
I busted your "Like" cherry!
Since 1980
4 Final Fours
1 title
Not awful but those accomplishments for a blue blood in 40 years is pretty bad, and certainly worthy of discussion of where they fit in these categories IMO
We still don't know if the tiers are weighted more towards overall success or recent success. If it's recent success and you want to kick out UCLA from tier 1, Cincinnati and Arkansas need to get demoted to tier 3.
I don't think I would really move UCLA out of one, but I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that there needs to be a discussion about their blue blood status if things continue.
Why do you guys have such a hard on for "kicking schools out of blue blood status"?
The dog shit was mainly trolling. But IU has been mediocre for decades. They could still turn it around, but when every hire doesn't work out you wonder...
They are closer to #1 all time than moving out of tier 1. They went to three final fours in the 2000's. Had a runner up.
I think it just depends on what people hold as far as importance. For some, it may be the 11 titles. Which I'm not disputing isn't a great asset and important. But they are the least consistent of the five blue bloods and I don't think its even close.
Some of you guys are too dense. We are literally in a topic discussing basketball tiers, and I noted that UCLA's inconsistency may warrant discussions on them moving down to the next tier if it continues. How is that trying to assert dominance?
This isn’t a one off thing, anytime UCLA comes up some of you guys start foaming at the mouth about their “blue blood status”.
I don't know why either? I haven't seen one person in this thread put them above UK.
Haven’t been relevant for a long time. Is this history class? They used to be nationally prominent. Maybe they will again some time. They haven’t made the tournament in 4 years. 3 straight years with a 5 star. Maybe.
John Lennon was still alive the last time Purdue could even sniff a championship
I think had Pitt avoided the disaster that was the last four years, we’d be firmly in Tier 3.
Hopefully Coach Capel can turn it around and get us back up there.
Hopefully Coach Capel can turn it around and get us back up there.
Villanova has to be in any conversation when you get to Louisville, MSU, and UConn.
related, is there any meaning to the order within the tiers? If so, tier 2 is all sorts of messed up.
Yea, I forget about Nova. Though my own fault, they certainly deserve to be in that conversation, like you said. And no, I don't think there's any order once you get into the tiers.
They've been as relevant as Purdue has been, and that's in one of IU's worst stretches.
"So shut your whore mouth gif"
UCLA and Indiana won most of their titles with one coach... I get they are considered blue bloods but they haven’t been for quite a while now. UCLA has had one national title, I think four final fours since Wooden. IU has been to one final four since Knight.. The problem is that both schools have been down for years.... I think MSU, and Nova have legitimate arguments to be ahead of both these schools. Can’t just be like we are a blue bloods because we dominated 3 decades ago. There are a few schools that have been successful in multiple decades, those are the top tier schools. They have been successful with multiple coaches. So to say that UCLA shouldn’t be tier two is a stretch... You can’t over look the past no! But you have to include the last three decades! Doing so I don’t see them as a top tier school...
IU won 2 titles with Branch Mccracken and 3 titles with Bob Knight, that's not "most with one coach". Besides, Duke has had ALL of their success with one coach, are you taking them off the list?
I respect the hell out of the Nova and MSU programs. That said, the only way Nova or MSU belong ahead of IU or UCLA is if you value recent success WAY more than past success and I don't think that's fair.
Michigan State hasn't even been close to having the stretch IU had under Knight let alone UCLA's success under Wooden. Hell they haven't won a title in over 20 years.
Titles are very hard to come by and you can't erase the past. IU has struggled recently and still has way more titles than every school outside of a couple.
Last edited:
Blue Bloods- UK, UNC, UCLA, Duke, KU, IU
Great- UL, Nova, Uconn
Very Good- MSU, Cuse, Ohio St, Mich
Good- UVA, UF, Zona, NC St
Solid- A lot
JMO. After the first 4 tiers we get into a big cluster of very solid programs. I might've missed a team or two above as I did it quickly off the top of my head.
Great- UL, Nova, Uconn
Very Good- MSU, Cuse, Ohio St, Mich
Good- UVA, UF, Zona, NC St
Solid- A lot
JMO. After the first 4 tiers we get into a big cluster of very solid programs. I might've missed a team or two above as I did it quickly off the top of my head.
Its time to move UCLA down .... if Indiana isnt in the top tier then UCLA shouldnt be either.
Its amazing how good our program has been considering until the last 10 years the administration treated it like dog crap. So cheap we lost coaches to Iowa state and Arizona State.
RollLaugh
The CD player and camcorder had not yet been invented and MTv was still a year away the last time Iowa was in a FF.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Bob Marley was still alive and Ronald Reagan had not yet been inaugurated since the last Iowa FF
Laughing
What are your chances of winning a NC? Lolol
And your whole AD is dog shit.
I think we hung 60 + on your football team a couple years ago. RollLaugh
