What are the top 10 BB programs of all time?

[The Derski]

ESPN ranked the top 50 programs of all time a while ago. Here is their top 10.

1. UNC
2. UCLA
3. Kentucky
4. Duke
5. Kansas
6. Louisville
7. Indiana
8. Syracuse
9. UConn
10. Arizona

 

[The Derski]

#1. Kentucky
#2. Indiana
#3. UCLA
#4. Duke
#5. North Carolina
#6. Kansas
#7. Louisville
#8. Michigan St

The rest doesn't even matter

You realize UConn has more titles than MSU right?

 

[H2S]

lame is as...

syracuse is #23

yah...cold hard stats are a bitch when they don't support your assumptions, aren't they?

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Here's your ESPN/Sagarin all time ranking from a few years ago:

                    RATING  CHESS PREDICTOR YRS
1  Kentucky         89.81   89.56   89.65   71
2  UCLA             87.57   87.45   87.36   72
3  Kansas           87.27   86.85   87.18   72
4  North Carolina   87.19   87.33   86.70   72
5  Indiana          87.17   87.02   86.93   72
6  Illinois         86.79   86.36   86.75   72
7  Duke             86.65   86.49   86.43   72
8  Purdue           85.09   84.87   84.70   72
9  Ohio State       84.85   85.04   84.16   72
10 Iowa             84.60   84.47   84.24   72

Lulz.

 

[H2S]

not making the news here...

did you dispute it then? was it as funny at the time?

Here's your ESPN/Sagarin all time ranking from a few years ago:

lulz

...it was just a fucking link pertinent to the thread subject discussion...if you can supply something more timely, please do so.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

You realize UConn has more titles than MSU right?

Ok . . .

 

[The Derski]

Ok . . .

Just saying you made a top 8 and said the "rest don't matter" when some teams from the "rest" have more trophies than the teams that "do matter" according to you.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

Just saying you made a top 8 and said the "rest don't matter" when some teams from the "rest" have more trophies than the teams that "do matter" according to you.

You're absolutely right.

Kentucky
Indiana
UCLA
Duke
North Carolina

The rest doesn't matter.

Better?

 

[rmilia1]

Id lose UConn and replace with OSU but otherwise looks good.

 

[The Derski]

You're absolutely right.

Kentucky
Indiana
UCLA
Duke
North Carolina

The rest doesn't matter.

Better?

Your top 5 is good. Kansas certainly has a case though.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

Your top 5 is good. Kansas certainly has a case though.

Agreed.

Only reason I left out UCONN is because their history doesn't go back far enough. If you add UCONN then you have to consider Florida to, wouldn't you?

 

[The Derski]

Agreed.

Only reason I left out UCONN is because their history doesn't go back far enough. If you add UCONN then you have to consider Florida to, wouldn't you?

Yeah that makes sense. It's just hard for me to ignore 3 titles. I think people forget about Louisville's tremendous history as well.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

Yeah that makes sense. It's just hard for me to ignore 3 titles. I think people forget about Louisville's tremendous history as well.

Yeah Louisville is a clear cut #7 for me.

UCONN would fall under the next line of good basketball programs. Maybe I'd move MSU their as well.

UCONN, MSU, Florida, Arizona, Illinois, Syracuse and Marquette

 

[john01992]

Agreed.

Only reason I left out UCONN is because their history doesn't go back far enough. If you add UCONN then you have to consider Florida to, wouldn't you?

uconn may have little history before the tournament expanded but they at least have SOME history (13 bids going back from 1951-1979)

florida didnt start getting touny bids until the tourny went to 64 teams (1985)

 

[CatsTopPac]

Saying "all-time" throws some of this off a bit. Because many of these teams have been around since the 40's you can have a few teams that had astounding success 50-70 years ago (but haven't really done much since then, be as good as teams that have done well for the last 30-50 years (but never really do anything before then), and teams who have been alright (but have done that the entire time).

So, just to let you know, saying the best "all-time" presents some problems. If you are going to rank teams that were great decades and decades ago, ahead of teams that have done much, much better, in the last few decades, then go for it (but they have obviously been through their heyday. Looking at teams that have been better in the last few decades, at least offers the argument that they are still in their period of success, and will continue to be good.

That's why ESPN picked the last 50 years, and they also did one back in 2008 that ranked the best programs in the last 25 years (widely considered the modern era).

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

did you dispute it then? was it as funny at the time?

Yes and Yes. I love Sagarin and think his daily rankings are great, but his methodology behind that list is utterly retarded.

...it was just a fucking link pertinent to the thread subject discussion...if you can supply something more timely, please do so.

I just posted it as a relevant blurb to talk about. It wasn't directed at any one person. My use of "your" was probably ill-advised. Sorry about that.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Saying "all-time" throws some of this off a bit. Because many of these teams have been around since the 40's you can have a few teams that had astounding success 50-70 years ago (but haven't really done much since then, be as good as teams that have done well for the last 30-50 years (but never really do anything before then), and teams who have been alright (but have done that the entire time).

So, just to let you know, saying the best "all-time" presents some problems. If you are going to rank teams that were great decades and decades ago, ahead of teams that have done much, much better, in the last few decades, then go for it (but they have obviously been through their heyday. Looking at teams that have been better in the last few decades, at least offers the argument that they are still in their period of success, and will continue to be good.

That's why ESPN picked the last 50 years, and they also did one back in 2008 that ranked the best programs in the last 25 years (widely considered the modern era).

I agree with a lot of the points you're making, but I think weighing current success over past success, just because it's current is flawed logic. This happens every time somebody decides to do an "all time great" list. People generally have a bias towards the familiar so they rate teams they've seen higher than teams they haven't. They rate bands they've hear don the radio above bands they haven't. Books they've read (or even heard of) above books they haven't.

Weighing current success over past success (without reason) defeats the whole purpose of an "all time" list. If someone wants to ignore past success, then go with the last 25 years, or last 50 years. I have no problem with that. But don't call it an "all time" list if you aren't really giving the old teams a fair shake.

Speculating that a team will be good in the future because they're good now is the same sort of logic that gets teams ranked way too high in the preseason because people think they're going to be good by the end of the season. The difference there is that in the preseason you don't have anything else to go on. With an "all time" list you have the entire history of basketball to look at. It's not like you're laking in data on which to base your claim.

That said, weighting things for a reason is a different matter. For example, I weigh older championships less than current ones because it was much easier to make it through a 16 team field and win, compared to a 64 team (or however fucking many they've added now) field. UCLA was undeniably great in their heyday, and probably would have still won several championships even if they did play in a 64+ team field... but they didn't. The fact is they had an easier path than teams do now, so I'm going to take that into account when I rank teams. But not just because they happened before I was born.

 

[WhiteMamba]

How dare yall knock on UCONN.

Calhoun is the man.

I say top 10 fer sere.

And Zona... No. top 20 maybe so.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I definitely wasn't trying to diminish the legacies of the past. In one light, I was assuming your point that less teams in March makes for an easier run. The modern era was established by the field increasing to 64 teams. I guess my point though with the list having problems with being incomplete is that the run of some of the current teams is clearly not over. They haven't even gotten the opportunity to run their course. Now, some runs are closer to the end than others, and time will surely tell. But that's my point. Some teams are higher when their time has clearly come and gone, while some teams now are in their prime. So the current teams being ranked lower is a bit of a disservice. Personally, I think that the all-time list is just too flawed to even calculate. There are different eras, rules, paths to the NC, and number of teams competing. Even weighing the UCLA teams less because they didn't compete against 64 teams: it's like saying that they get less points because they had an easier road. But we'll never know if they could have still won them against the expanded field, because the option to do so just wasn't available. We can't even agree on a metric. How much do wins count vs. NCs. And does a FF in 1960 count the same as a FF now, or and Elite 8?

If I am to provide an extreme example of what I'm trying to say, consider this:

In football, Yale has 27 NCs. That would probably make them in the top 5 ever, if not the best, right.? But all of their championships except one (1927) were from 1874-1909. So how does that get weighted when they haven't won but one (shared) NC in over 100 years?

Again, it's an extreme example. But for the sake of debate, it's just too problematic to get much past the bluebloods, because everyone else just rises and falls. Some teams were great a long time ago, and some are in the middle of being great now. And being that we will never even agree on an accurate system to weight the different eras, then everyone is just going to go with whatever list makes their team look the best.

 

[JahiiCarson_SqodGeneral]

AU could be there Mamba in terms of continued success and lack of down years, also talent produced, while they have only 1 ring there winning percentage is great and this is coming from an ASU fan there program has dominated the PAC consistantly and other than a couple years they always are a contender what is it like 27 straight? They should be in the top 10 but fuck them! Fucking hate them so much! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh carry on!

I have only seen 1 bad year of Tuscum hoops and that was when Olsons replacement Sean Millers first year. Ucla is inconsistent but always have good teams most of the time but Ucla does have more championships........