CBS Sports: Ranking top 25 college basketball programs of last 25 years

[HooperScooper]

Another version of a Top 25. Write up on UConn says for 5 championships this "feels kinda low" but then points out the total number of wins during this period is lower than others because of some mediocre to crappy years.

Top 10:
1. Duke
2. Kansas
3. UConn
4. North Carolina
5. Michigan State (lol)
6. Kentucky
7. Florida
8. Villanova
9. Syracuse (lol)
10. Gonzaga

Ranking top 25 college basketball programs of last 25 years: Which teams have performed the best since 2000

These are the programs who have made their mark in the first quarter of the century

www.cbssports.com

 

[HooperScooper]

Btw, it's crazy to see UConn has 5 national championships and nobody else has more than 3 (Duke and UNC) during this period. 13 of this top 25 have 0 championships.

 

[Inyatkin]

Syracuse pretty high considering they dropped basketball a few years back

 

[Scottzer]

Btw, it's crazy to see UConn has 5 national championships and nobody else has more than 3 (Duke and UNC) during this period. 13 of this top 25 have 0 championships.

It’s okay. When everybody sees the program is as good as it is, the old shoulder chip might come off. I don’t care if anybody says Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, or UNC are better programs. They have been for a time. It’s just not right now, and we don’t need to feel vindicated by anything other than our titles.

 

[B1GEast]

Several flaws in his logic such as narrowing the evaluation to total wins as the deciding factor downplaying the actual achievements that define greatness in college basketball.

UConn gets low marks for missing tournaments and that skews ranking.

5 titles and 6 Final Fours are unmatched by any other team on that list.

His biased flaw is assuming that dips in performance somehow cancel out championships when in reality UConn's peaks at the very top matter more in legacy rankings than filling the middle with steady but lesser result

Then he moves to the absurd. UConn has won its 5 titles under three different coaches, somehow winning with multiple coaches is a bad thing.

If anything , it proves institutional strength and not just a single legacy coach dynasty. Our ability to reload and win under different regimes should add weight, not reduce it.

The true testament of a great program is postseason dominance and not simply padding regular season records or wins.

I get it, these guys don't really care, but the truth speaks for itself.

 

[Huskyforlife]

Obvious bait.

 

[Scottzer]

Several flaws in his logic such as narrowing the evaluation to total wins as the deciding factor downplaying the actual achievements that define greatness in college basketball.

UConn gets low marks for missing tournaments and that skews ranking.

5 titles and 6 Final Fours are unmatched by any other team on that list.

His biased flaw is assuming that dips in performance somehow cancel out championships when in reality UConn's peaks at the very top matter more in legacy rankings than filling the middle with steady but lesser result

Then he moves to the absurd. UConn has won its 5 titles under three different coaches, somehow winning with multiple coaches is a bad thing.

If anything , it proves institutional strength and not just a single legacy coach dynasty. Our ability to reload and win under different regimes should add weight, not reduce it.

The true testament of a great program is postseason dominance and not simply padding regular season records or wins.

I get it, these guys don't really care, but the truth speaks for itself.

I didn’t read the article - so whatever I say is sarcasm.

He was clearly accurate in pointing out the failures of the program, by it needing two following coaches to equal his title total. Oh, and, he probably had nothing to do with removing one for a bit of apathy.