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.

 

[CL82]

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

So basically they said we are ranking UConn third because of Kevin Ollie's post championship seasons.

 

[80shusky]

UConn is the best team of the last 25 years because I said so. Anyway, having a ton of regular season wins and being more consistent is great, and I'd love to see UConn having less peaks and valleys and more consistency in having 20+ win seasons and making the tournament. But their trophy case needs more cowbell.

 

[CL82]

UConn is the best team of the last 25 years because I said so. Anyway, having a ton of regular season wins and being more consistent is great, and I'd love to see UConn having less peaks and valleys and more consistency in having 20+ win seasons and making the tournament. But their trophy case needs more cowbell.

Honestly, I wouldn't give up a national championship for 20 win season, or two or ten. Consistency of excellence is a good thing. Consistency of mediocrity? Shrug.

 

[YukonDolt6]

It should be based on the past 25 seasons (not years - misleading due to covid year), during which UConn has 6 NCs and 7 Final4s.

 

[Jaydumo20]

The thing that makes this assessments so flimsy can be seen in the '14 team.

One Brimah free throw separates us from having an average season to having the Best Season of any team thst year. Rings have always been what matters. Sports are flawed in this way but it's the only metric that ever counts.

 

[Hoophound]

The thing that makes this assessments so flimsy can be seen in the '14 team.

One Brimah free throw separates us from having an average season to having the Best Season of any team thst year. Rings have always been what matters. Sports are flawed in this way but it's the only metric that ever counts.

UConn fans get caught up in the Brimah thing too much. It’s kind of weird. I’m not saying you are one of them, but there’s definitely people on the board that always mention that Brimah play. They don’t mention it with joy, but as a way to put down that team. I don’t get it.

Many, many championship teams have barely survived at one or two points in the tourney. I hate that someone always mentions that. We deserved that title and we were the best team in the tourney. Our guards ran it.

 

[RuffRuff]

Meh, whatever. This type of list is totally subjective based on whatever criteria the list maker chooses to weigh the heaviest. Championships get the most attention and those trophies impress the most when a recruit is on a visit, along with NBA alumni.

Nova too far down this list too. Their run on the back end of Wrights career has more tailwind than anything MSU has done in those 25 years, which has been largely forgettable. Zags behind Cuse seems off too - don’t care that Cuse has their one Melo title. If you’re going to index on winning and consistency then Few takes that.

 

[RuffRuff]

ChatGBT got it right (based on “objective” criteria)

Top 25 programs of the last 25 seasons

1. UConn — 5 national titles (2004, 2011, 2014, 2023, 2024), 7 Final Fours, massive tourney win total; elite recent efficiency.
2. Kansas — 2 titles (2008, 2022), most wins and bids in the span, constant top-5 efficiency.
3. Duke — 3 titles (2001, 2010, 2015), frequent and deep runs; elite efficiency profile.
4. North Carolina — 3 titles (2005, 2009, 2017), multiple runner-ups and .
5. Gonzaga — 2 runner-ups, many second-weekends; top-3 long-run efficiency despite no title.
6. Villanova — 2 titles (2016, 2018), another FF; superb 2014-19 peak.
7. Michigan State — 2000 title, 10 Final Fours all-time with many since 2000; steady second-weekend output.
8. Kentucky — 2012 title, multiple /runs; huge tourney win count.
9. Florida — Back-to-back (2006, 2007) plus 2025 title; three championships in span.
10. Virginia — 2019 title; dominant regular seasons/efficiency, several deep runs.
11. Baylor — 2021 title; multiple E8/; strong 2019-22 peak efficiency.
12. Arizona — consistent high seeds, many S16/E8s; strong efficiency era under multiple coaches.

 

[aburks41]

Michigan State over Florida is INSANE.

These stupid articles always give more credit to simply making the tournament every year than they do for winning the whole thing. Success is defined by winning championships, not making the playoffs. UConn has been the most successful program of the last 25 years and it's not even close. We won 6 titles since 1999. Duke and KU have won 5 combined since then.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

It's all entirely subjective. I hate missing the tournament. Is one missed tournament enough to cancel a championship? Of course not. But if you told me we'd win this year and miss the NCAAs the next five years I would not make that trade. I enjoy the experience of rooting for my team in the tournament too much, whereas championships, after that first couple, matter less to me than they did. A Purdue fan should be willing to trade a kidney for a Championship.

But looking at @RuffRuff's list, I am truly blessed and I know it. One team wins Championships and the other hasn't missed a tournament since the 80s.

 

[ucp990411]

Something to remember about write ups like this is that they are often authored by Syracuse grads who naturally have an anti UConn bias although I do not know about this author. But putting Syracuse on this list is laughable.

 

[auror]

Michigan State over Florida is INSANE.

These stupid articles always give more credit to simply making the tournament every year than they do for winning the whole thing. Success is defined by winning championships, not making the playoffs. UConn has been the most successful program of the last 25 years and it's not even close. We won 6 titles since 1999. Duke and KU have won 5 combined since then.

14 Sweet Sixteens for MSU to 9 for Florida is pretty significant. That's 5 extra years, 25% of the total sample, that they were "competing". Even for blue bloods, I usually generally think of a Sweet 16 as a "successful season". That means you've got a capable team in striking distance of a FF/championship if things break the right way.

14 to 10 total league championships.

MSU 2 extra Final Fours, 8 more NCAA tournament wins. Florida has 2 extra titles.

It's pretty close to me. I usually view these things in terms of happiness utility and championship equity. Obviously you get the most utility and equity with a title by far, but league championships do bring me joy and getting to the Final Four is great, too. There's definitely a point of pride in never missing the tournament once in the sample, even if as you say to me it's not as important as actually doing damage in the tournament (and overall having more Sweet 16s and Final Fours shows that MSU did a lot of tournament damage).

 

[HuskyHawk]

Michigan State over Florida is INSANE.

These stupid articles always give more credit to simply making the tournament every year than they do for winning the whole thing. Success is defined by winning championships, not making the playoffs. UConn has been the most successful program of the last 25 years and it's not even close. We won 6 titles since 1999. Duke and KU have won 5 combined since then.

It is defined by both. Would you say that the Yankees fans and Royals or Marlins fans have had the same experience since 2000?

 

[gtcam]

So basically they said we are ranking UConn third because of Kevin Ollie's post championship seasons.

More accurately - the AAC years, KO happened to be caught in that BS

 

[aburks41]

It is defined by both. Would you say that the Yankees fans and Royals or Marlins fans have had the same experience since 2000?

Well as a Yankee fan I will be the first person to tell you that the Yankees have been a complete failure since 2000. Every single Yankees fan I know wants Cashman fired and Hal to sell the team. Their mentality is simply making the playoffs is considered a success. That's not success. Success is winning a championship.

 

[PNolanFan]

It is defined by both. Would you say that the Yankees fans and Royals or Marlins fans have had the same experience since 2000?

A better comparison would be SF Giants versus Yankees, I am pretty sure royals and marlins have the same championship count as the yankees (maybe florida has 2).... Whereas the Giants have 3 WS (maybe 4?) versus 1 for the yankees. I for the record would rather have rooted for the giants the last 25 years

 

[Lafayette]

More accurately - the AAC years, KO happened to be caught in that BS

The KO giveth (natty) and taketh (ac prob, settlement)

 

[superjohn]

It is defined by both. Would you say that the Yankees fans and Royals or Marlins fans have had the same experience since 2000?

Would you say that the Kansas fans and UConn fans have had the same experience since 2000? Would you rather be a Kansas fan than a UConn fan?