Top Men's Basketball Programs All Time

[KevyChase21]

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Duke

5. UCLA
6. UConn
7. Indiana



8. Villanova
9. Louisville
10. Michigan State

I think if you put them into tiers, 1-4 are the indisputable top 4 of all time. Maybe you will disagree with my order, but I think it is very difficult to say that any programs outside of the top 4 could be placed above UK, UNC, Kansas, and Duke. Next tier is UCLA, UConn, then Indiana. Big gap between those top 7 and the next highest of Nova, UL, and Mich St.

Titles to me are by far the most important factor but I do look at other things matter as well. When it comes to the NCAA tournament, 3 things matter, in order of importance:

NCAA tournament
1. National Championships
2. All-time NCAA Tournament Wins/ Win Percentage
3. All-time NCAA Tournament Appearances

I don't even really care about Final Fours because losing in FF isn't a good thing. For example, Kansas has 16 FF and only 4 titles, whereas UConn has 6 FF and 5 titles (10-1 FF record). In my opinion, UConn's FF/title stats are more impressive compared to Kansas. I also don't care much for seeding because it can be very subjective.

Then, I'd say with Regular Season, things to do with conference and national factors. For conference related things, in order of importance like Conference Regular Season Championships, Conference Tournament Championships.

Regular Season (Conference)
1. Conference Tournament Championships
2. Conference Regular Season Championships
3. Conference Awards, All Conference, POY, FOY, COY, etc.

Regular Season (National)
1. All-American, National POY, National COY etc.
2. AP Poll appearances

I'm sure I'm missing some but as a diehard UConn fan trying to be as objective as possible, I think UConn should be considered the 6th best program of all time. I so badly want to convince myself they are above UCLA, the trickiest program to rank all time, but 11 national championships is still 11 and if I give UConn a ton of credit I have to give it to UCLA as well.

What do you guys think? I’m curious to know!

 

[EZPass]

I don't even really care about Final Fours because losing in FF isn't a good thing.

Titles to me are by far the most important factor

I agree. Your list doesn’t.

UCLA, UConn, Indiana is a strange tier, IMO.

 

[NCHuskie919]

I'd throw UCLA up there at 5 in the first tier. Then I'd smash tier 3 into tier 2 because I don't believe those teams are separated by that much. But that's it. I even like the order except for Kansas over Duke.

 

[UConnRock]

We then get into the much discussed question of best in “modern college basketball”. In this definition UConn is at or near the top. Is the barometer for “modern” post 1974 when the tournament went to 32 teams?

 

[businesslawyer]

We then get into the much discussed question of best in “modern college basketball”. In this definition UConn is at or near the top. Is the barometer for “modern” post 1974 when the tournament went to 32 teams?

To me, the “modern era” started when NC State beat UCLA in double OT in the national semifinal. Wouldn’t have mattered how many teams were in the tourney before the UCLA dynasty ended, and there was little push to expand the tourney when UCLA was going to win every year anyway.

 

[aburks41]

Duke is a one coach program. They can't point to any of their Titles and say that it wasn't Coach K.

 

[McLovin]

We then get into the much discussed question of best in “modern college basketball”. In this definition UConn is at or near the top. Is the barometer for “modern” post 1974 when the tournament went to 32 teams?

Field of 64 expansion in 1985.

 

[housekeys]

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Duke

5. UCLA
6. UConn
7. Indiana



8. Villanova
9. Louisville
10. Michigan State

Because we need more ways to debate and beat a dead horse, let's evaluate them as pairs?

I. Kentucky/North Carolina == Kansas/UCLA == Duke/UConn​

II. Indiana/Villanova​

​

III. Louisville/Michigan State​

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

Something doesn’t feel right about a program with 3 titles being over a program with 5.

Or 11 for that matter.

 

[nomar]

I’m having deja vu about my deja vu

 

[Matrim55]

Duke is a one coach program. They can't point to any of their Titles and say that it wasn't Coach K.

Came here to say this. Let's see what Duke becomes without K before we put them in the UK/UNC/UCLA/KU tier.

 

[auror]

Duke made the title game with both Vik Bubas and Bill Foster.

 

[Rocktheworld]

All I know is that we are the only program along with UK who has won a NC with three different coaches since the tournament became fair in 1975

If we are taking about those 50 years, it has to be us, UNC, UK, Duke, and then everyone else. Maybe KU slips in because of their 10 final fours.

 

[Palatine]

How many NCAA games did Duke and UNC win in North Carolina? One or the other always seemed to get home games in the tourney every year. The NCAA was tourney was filled with home cooking for those two while the rest of the country played mostly neutral court games. It would like us playing elite eight games in the Hartford Civic Center. Their "greatness" was artificially enhanced.

 

[UConn Dan]

Thank you for your interest in UConn basketball.

 

[KevyChase21]

We then get into the much discussed question of best in “modern college basketball”. In this definition UConn is at or near the top. Is the barometer for “modern” post 1974 when the tournament went to 32 teams?

I think if the "modern era" is considered 64+ teams in the NCAA tournament, which is 1985-present. It is Duke #1, and UConn #2.

 

[KevyChase21]

Duke is a one coach program. They can't point to any of their Titles and say that it wasn't Coach K.

Ya I agree, which is why I put them below Kansas.

 

[KevyChase21]

Came here to say this. Let's see what Duke becomes without K before we put them in the UK/UNC/UCLA/KU tier.

I'd also say that UCLA is a 1 coach program. They have 1 title in 50 years since Wooden.

 

[Jaydumo20]

Duke made the title game with both Vik Bubas and Bill Foster.

That Duke basketball was nothing before K is a huge misconception. Good work

 

[aburks41]

There really is no good comp for UConn. We don't have the history of winning in the dinosaur era, but yet we've lapped the field since the 1990's and are clearly the most successful program over the past quarter century. And we've done it with 3 coaches which is about as impressive as it gets.

Most people can't even name more than 10 players from the 20's, 30's, 40s, 50's, and 60's. Who cares about those years in the overall discussion of program rankings. At the end of the day, all that matters is UConn has 5 titles. Same as Duke. One less than UNC. One more than Kansas.

 

[BuffaloHusky]

I'd also say that UCLA is a 1 coach program. They have 1 title in 50 years since Wooden.

I find this thinking ironic as UCLA has been pretty impressive since Wooden. In total they have been to Final Fours with 5 different coaches (Wooden, Harrick, Brown, Howland and Cronin) and won championships under 2 (Wooden, Harrick). Kentucky is the only other school to have gone to Final Fours with 5 different coaches (Rupp, Hall, Pitino, Smith and Calipari) and has been fortunate to win a championship or two with each. Regardless, UCLA is the original blue blood.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

I find this thinking ironic as UCLA has been pretty impressive since Wooden. In total they have been to Final Fours with 5 different coaches (Wooden, Harrick, Brown, Howland and Cronin) and won championships under 2 (Wooden, Harrick). Kentucky is the only other school to have gone to Final Fours with 5 different coaches (Rupp, Hall, Pitino, Smith and Calipari) and has been fortunate to win a championship or two with each. Regardless, UCLA is the original blue blood.

UCLA also has a lowkey impressive list of NBAers including the Holidays, Lonzo Ball (before he got hurt), K Love, Westbrook, Lavine, etc. off the top of my head there’s probably more.

 

[superjohn]

There really is no good comp for UConn. We don't have the history of winning in the dinosaur era, but yet we've lapped the field since the 1990's and are clearly the most successful program over the past quarter century. And we've done it with 3 coaches which is about as impressive as it gets.

Most people can't even name more than 10 players from the 20's, 30's, 40s, 50's, and 60's. Who cares about those years in the overall discussion of program rankings. At the end of the day, all that matters is UConn has 5 titles. Same as Duke. One less than UNC. One more than Kansas.

The other thing that's unique about us compared to those other teams is we don't make the tournament every year and aren't a high seed every year. We've had our fair share of stinker seasons but when we make the tournament our odds of winning the whole thing are ridiculous compared to the other blue bloods.

 

[BuffaloHusky]

The other thing that's unique about us compared to those other teams is we don't make the tournament every year and aren't a high seed every year. We've had our fair share of stinker seasons but when we make the tournament our odds of winning the whole thing are ridiculous compared to the other blue bloods.

So much of that had to do with recruiting 5 star talent year in and year out. We rarely have had players waiting in the wings who were undeniably the best high school players in their classes so some of the drop offs in production was simply talent not having developed to their potential in a certain window of time. I feel like that is starting to change beginning with Castle and wouldn't be surprised if we were more consistent year in and year out under Hurley.

 

[aburks41]

The other thing that's unique about us compared to those other teams is we don't make the tournament every year and aren't a high seed every year. We've had our fair share of stinker seasons but when we make the tournament our odds of winning the whole thing are ridiculous compared to the other blue bloods.

Going forward I expect Hurley will have us in the tournament nearly every year, barring a barrage of freak injuries. And with the portal, theres really no excuses to not be able to reload year after year nowadays.

Calhoun didn’t have that luxury; you had to bat nearly 1.000 in recruiting, but that’s hard to do when you are mainly recruiting in that 30-75ish range. Some of them are bound to turn into a Jamaal Coombs-McDaniel caliber player instead of a Jordan Hawkins