NCAA Tournament History -- Over What Span Do Championships Count?

[Tenspro2002]

I was reading the history of the NCAA Tournament and while I knew they had a pretty constrained number of teams and competed with the NIT, I didn't realize how limited the competition was. It's fair to downgrade championships from before that era.

Teams would decline NCAA bids to participate in the NIT as late as 1970.

The inclusion of multiple teams from a given conference wasn't allowed until 1975, and even then only permitted 2 per conference. That restriction was only lifted in 1980.

The Tournament finally reached its near-current form with a 64-team field in 1985.

Where do we draw the line? That's debatable, but I would argue that pre-1970 championships are clearly diminished in value, and post-1985 championships are clearly legit.

If we use the most generous criteria, post-1970 multiple champions are:
5 - UConn
5 - Duke
5 - UNC
5 - UCLA
4 - Kentucky
3 - Kansas
3 - Indiana
3 - Villanova
2 - Florida
2 - MSU
2 - Louisville (3rd vacated)
2- NC State


By the most restrictive criteria, post-1985 multiple champions are:
5 - UConn
5 - Duke
4 - UNC
3 - Kentucky
3 - Kansas
3 - Villanova
2 - Florida

Either way, this weekend, we have the opportunity to cement ourselves as the winningest program (championship-wise) of the modern era.

 

[kobebeanbryant]

Post 1999 are the only ones I recognize.

 

[tzznandrew]

With context, all can and should count equally. It's fine. Hell, if we get six, I'm cool with Syracuse pretending the Helms count (because then they have to also suggest they're on the same level as Yale).

That said, I tend to value more highly 1979 or so. Founding of the Big East. Bird-Magic making the tournament have more national appeal, real seeding for the first time, etc. Tournament is in the process of expanding, eastern independents are going away, etc.

 

[Brochacho]

Personally, I don't care about anything before the mid-60s - black people couldn't play or they had limits on how many can be on the court at one time. Anything prior to 1945 doesn't count double in my mind. Not only were minorities barred, but about 50% of college-aged men were serving in WW2.

 

[businesslawyer]

Post 1999 are the only ones I recognize.

Oh -- no. Post 98.

 

[EROCK CONN]

I 1000% do not consider a Helms national title. Really only Kansas does which is laughable.

 

[SubbaBub]

If one equates the Wooden Era to the pre-Ruth dead ball era of baseball or the pre Super Bowl era of football or the pre-merger of the NBA, then 1979 would be the first relevant tournament.

Everyone can agree that pre-Kareem is irrelevant.

 

[tzznandrew]

Teams would decline NCAA bids to participate in the NIT as late as 1970.

One team did. Marquette. It was unique and most mostly out of spite.

 

[tzznandrew]

If one equates the Wooden Era to the pre-Ruth dead ball era of baseball or the pre Super Bowl era of football or the pre-merger of the NBA, then 1979 would be the first relevant tournament.

Everyone can agree that pre-Kareem is irrelevant.

Right. I basically treat it like interesting history, a la how people treat the pre-poll championships in CFB.

 

[Storrs South]

I 1000% do not consider a Helms national title. Really only Kansas does which is laughable.

UNC hangs the banners as well. Clown programs.

 

[bendm]

1975 when the tourney expanded to 32 is a fair and logical compromise.

I agree the modern era starts in 1985 with the expansion to 64 teams but we cant completely ignore history. Plus UConn still ranks as the fifth best team (after unc, duke, uk, ku) when we start in 1975.

But pre-1975 the tourney was completely unrecognizable and no one can argue otherwise with a straight face.

 

[White Dwarf]

UNC hangs the banners as well. Clown programs.

I lol'd

 

[superjohn]

There wasn't intergration until 1947-48 and Texas Western was the first with an all black starting 5 to win the national championship, that was in 1966. That's my demarcation for when we saw true integration. It was still just 22 teams then in the tournament. Mid to late 50's was when the NCAA took over as the premier tournament and the true national champion.

I would say anything after the mid to late 50's when the NCAA tournament was the premier tournament counts even though there were so few teams participating and there wasn't true integration.

1985 and on is the modern era of college basketball and the tournament. I don't think there's any disputing that.

Any NCAA or NIT title before the mid to late 50's has the same value as a Yale or Princeton football national championship in my view.

 

[Tenspro2002]

1975 when the tourney expanded to 32 is a fair and logical compromise.

I agree the modern era starts in 1985 with the expansion to 64 teams but we cant completely ignore history. Plus UConn still ranks as the fifth best team (after unc, duke, uk, ku) when we start in 1975.

But pre-1975 the tourney was completely unrecognizable and no one can argue otherwise with a straight face.

I can get on board with using 1975 as the boundary (sorry, UCLA). Restricting the Tournament to 1 team per conference, which they did before this, was absurd.

I'm also fine with 1979, 1980, or of course 1985.

I think we're all in agreement that the 50s and 60s, and certainly beforehand, don't carry nearly as much significance.

 

[ec33]

Any NCAA or NIT title before the mid to late 50's has the same value as a Yale or Princeton football national championship in my view.

Football titles are silly. Outside of Alabama a bunch of schools accumulating stats before any cares. Including the big football schools like the B1G schools (who won titles based on midwestern beat reporters voting on who was the best team in the country - see, Minnesota threepeat in the 1930s).

 

[Rocktheworld]

I think 1975 is the best cut-off. That was the big change in size and allowing more than one team per conference. That’s when the tournament most officially got more fair.

 

[August_West]

UNC hangs the banners as well. Clown programs.

Very sad.

 

[Inyatkin]

I like 1985. Before you had 64 teams, the top 4 seeds in each bracket all had byes into the second round. Think about how many Syracuse upsets that avoided

 

[MuchoDogYears]

IMO, the brilliance and domination of the UCLA teams of the 60’s created for the first time a national, rather than regional, spotlight on college basketball.

The 1968 game where Elvin Hayes and an undefeated Houston team played Lew Alcindor’s undefeated and reigning national championship UCLA team, in front of 55,000 fans in the Astrodome and a national TV audience, was THE seminal moment where college basketball changed forever in the national consciousness.

For purposes of this argument, I’d include NCAA tournament winners starting from 1964 (UCLA’s first).

 

[aburks41]

UNC hangs the banners as well. Clown programs.

Kentucky gets offended if you even mention their 1933 Helms title. They hang Final Four banners but they do not hang one for their Helms title, which I respect. They know it means jack because there was no tournament, no championship game, and therefore no national champion.