IU won 2 NCs being coached by a guy not named Bobby Knight.
Who are the top 5 programs in order?
- Thread starter rollsroyce8420
- Start date
And that’s all good, you got that on both sides and like you said earlier in this thread we are on your ass. Makes for good discussion.
That's a big point in KU's favor, similar to how UCLA deserves as high a spot as #5 on the list despite being much further down outside the Wooden years.
Ultimately I put Duke ahead of them right now. I'd say the odds are in KU's favor to sustain their level of success more easily and consistently 2 coaches down the road, though, so perhaps they'll be the consensus #3 (again) a couple decades down the road.
Ummm, that’s not true at all. The NCAA just said it was a matter for a different governing body. They didn’t say the academic fraud didn’t happen.
Man, the lengths some will go in self-justification...
I like this a lot. Nice work.
I would be in favor of adding Sweet 16s. I feel that’s a nice way to account for programs that consistently avoid early round upsets in the Tourney.
And if the squirrel had just crossed the road without getting squashed by the 18-wheeler it would be contentedly eating nuts.
I think it’s Kentucky, Carolina, and Duke in that order. UCLA would be 5th for me.
A flaw in his system is that he applies equal weight for each category. Certainly, number of NCs trump any other item.
I'm not a fan of any of those teams, but listing a team as 5th when it has a pronounced separation in number of national titles over anyone else seems downright silly to me.
I have a hard time with UCLA too... or at least putting them in the top four. Sorry, I know that sounds terrible, but almost all of their titles are pre modern era and limited to one distinct time when the way that the tournament was handled was WAY different.
Most of their titles were won by teams that were so dominant that they would have won under any format. Had Alcindor been eligible as a freshman, they would have had another title.
Consistency is very important. They are the least consistent except for a 10 year stretch and it’s not even close
If it wasn't for the man holding them down they would be on top for sure.
LOL, I think you're overlooking quite a bit. No problem, though. You go by a nebulous consistency standard, while I go with titles.
WOW!
"Hitler" references are made when the fool making the claim is too stupid to reason.
North Carolina is by far a more racist state than Kentucky. So stop.
Agree Hitler jokes are pretty dumb. Just seemed to fit at the moment. Not sure on your last take. Would be pretty tough to prove one way or the other. And fwiw, I’m from Illinois. Lived in NC for a few years, but I’m a northerner.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-12
According to this Kentucky had 206 hate crimes to North Carolina’s 148 in 2016 and North Carolina is more than double the population of Kentucky.
Take it for what it’s worth.
As long as you're still in the thread, I thought I'd call you out on your "consistency is very important" thingy. Since their skein of championships, the likes of which college basketball had never seen nor will see again, UCLA has won a title and been in the Final Four 5 other times. You reserve special regard for Duke, even though the Dukies didn't win their first title until 1991.
Duke had been to Final Fours before K. UCLA has 1 title and five final fours in the past 38 years. That good enough for you?
If we're talking about the greatest single-season teams ever, UCLA will be all over the top 10. In ranking them, however, a lot of us see a concentrated period of dynasty that is now fading further and further into the past.
To be fair, I bet if UCLA's numbers were spread out more, we'd all rank them higher. If their dominance had been more recent, we'd also probably rank them higher.
BTW, just to point out... without a definition of hate crimes, and without a breakdown of what they consist of, that information isn't necessarily the end all and be all. For example, this, from a different page...
- 20.7 percent stemmed from anti-White bias.
Still, some facts are better than no facts. Like... you know... listing school endowments and alumni vs just throwing BS out there
I searched a couple of things before I found that. Seems like around 40-60% of hate crimes in the United States anywhere are racial based, followed by other things like religion, gender, etc. The racial aspect of hate crimes seemed to be the most common form of hate crime reported. No idea how it makes up these numbers for North Carolina and Kentucky though.
UCLA only seems inconsistent because their tenure of dominance was so pronounced. Duke was in three Final Fours before Krzyzewski and didn't win its first NC until 52 years after the NCAA had its first tournament. Is that really the model of consistency you are regaling?
Well, nobody really thought a dynasty of such ironclad dominance would sustain over time, but UCLA hasn't vanished altogether. Since their last NC under Wooden, their 6 Final Fours with one title compares favorably to what Duke did in the first 52 years of the tournament, and as impressive as Duke has been since 1991 they still fall far short of the UCLA dynasty.
Um, ever hear of a guy named Branch McCracken? He's in the hall of fame and won two national titles at IU.
I agree IU has fallen off a bit recently, but for some perspective, Duke just now tied IU in titles and we haven't won one in 30 years lmao. KU is still two behind us and UNC just recently tied and surpassed us.
In ten years if IU gets another title or two then suddenly we're talking about them in the top 3 again. These things are cyclical and only a handful of programs are built to sustain success.
In no order :
IU
UK
UNC
Duke
Kansas
UCLA
You whine and cry every time a poster brings up 18 years of cheating and want us all to move on, then you bring that shit up, GTFO.
No, sorry, never heard that name. IU was Bobby Knight when I first started following college basketball. So he won titles in 40 and 53, I was born in 51, so that is why I did not know about him.
Right, it was academic, like we have said all along. That has been our point this entire time. I don't even know it is even discussed on a basketball message board tbh.
Haha. The only one I see whining and crying is you. Feel free to post any times you’ve seen me do the same. I’ll be waiting.
As for Jim Crow basketball, call it what you will, but “Beginning in 1961, Loyola broke the longstanding gentleman’s agreement (not to play more than three black players at any given time), putting as many as four black players on the court at every game.”
HALF of your 8 title says came pre-1961. I get it. The truth hurts.
Well I was born in 81 so I have no idea who Adolph Rupp is. Therefore Kentucky has basically only been good since after Pitino.
Pretty good logic, huh?
You're a Kentucky fan, right? Branch McCracken's career roughly coincided with Adolph Rupp's, and I'm sure you've heard of Rupp. McCracken was coaching Indiana in 1965, so there's really no excuse for a fan born in 1951 (like both you and I) not to have heard of him.
You have more than 20 years on me and I've heard of McCracken. No excuse for not even hearing about him.
The same people that say they don't care about it are always the one's talking about it. I mean we all moved on, can't change the past but some seem like they can't get it past it.
