Don't be ridiculous. Norlander did not change the formula to get certain results. If anything, the way he treated the numbers helped us, as everyone one of those Yankee Conference titles counted the same as our Big East titles.My bet is the criteria were massaged until they got the results they wanted. Why else would you count NBA picks (weighted heavily toward the higher picks)? The fact those picks helped with other criteria, like wins and titles and tournament bids, Final Fours and National Championships is double dipping IMHO.
I remember when St Johns was good year in and year out. It all changed when they changed their name to "Red Storm" lol!If they are judging programs basically from their existence, you can see some surprises like a St John's making the top 25. IIRC, St John's is ranked top 10 for all time wins in college basketball history.
How do you think Xavier would we feel about this?I didn’t realize Cincinnati was considered an all-time great program, but I always enjoy our battles with them. Their team identity fits so well in the Big East (and they used to recruit very well in NYC) and their football program seems to have outgrown the AAC. Im sure they’d love to join a power football conference but I wonder if football independence and re-joining the Big East is a better position for them than their current state. I really don’t know enough about the dynamics of college football to say, but I would like to see another public university join the Big East
That is what I was saying about Providence they had 2 NIT titles that they won when the NIT was really seen as the better tournament. Deeper field, no automatic bids. At large teams in particular often chose it over the NCAAs. I’m not sure I agree that rule changes like the 3 point line and shot clock made the Championship tougher. Those changed the game some but not sure they made it tougher but certainly the expansion to 48 then 64 did.I would argue that through 1970, an NIT title should be roughly equivalent to an NCAA title. I believe the 1970 Marquette team was the last big time program to turn down an NCAA bid for an NIT bid, but prior to 1970, the NIT was usually the deeper tournament because it was entirely at-large bids while the NCAA had mostly automatic bids, quite a few of which went to weak teams from weak conferences. Look at some of the teams UCLA played before the Final Four to win its early titles. There were a lot of wins over teams like UC Santa Barbara, New Mexico State and Santa Clara.
The NCAA Tournament didn't start to look like the modern tournament until the mid 70's, when it began significant expansion and also stopped the practice of regional bracketing in the early rounds (I can't find exactly when the regional bracketing ended). In 1981 the NCAA added the 3 point line, in 1985 it expanded the tournament to 64 teams, and in 1986 it added a shot clock. It is really hard to compare what happened prior to those three events with what happened after.
A championship from 1960 should be worth maybe half the value of a championship from 1990 or 2020.
These lists are always silly, that we're only 2 places in front of Cincy and behind Louisville is nothing to take pride in. Sorry I clicked on it.It’s hard to believe that we were just named the 8th greatest program in the history of college basketball and some people are viewing this as negative in any way. Can you imagine telling anyone in 1989 that UConn would be considered a top-10 program of all-time in 2020? It’s fun to debate lists like this, even ones with objective criteria, but I was stoked to be reminded of our standing among the greatest programs.
I think an interesting list would be the top programs since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 1985 teams. Somebody with more time on their hands than me should make that list.
Shot Clock: Pre shot clock, the team with the lead had a huge advantage in the last 10 minutes (obviously), forcing the team in the hole to take bigger and bigger risks. This cut both ways, because underdogs could be up late too.That is what I was saying about Providence they had 2 NIT titles that they won when the NIT was really seen as the better tournament. Deeper field, no automatic bids. At large teams in particular often chose it over the NCAAs. I’m not sure I agree that rule changes like the 3 point line and shot clock made the Championship tougher. Those changed the game some but not sure they made it tougher but certainly the expansion to 48 then 64 did.
The game has also changed with one and done players and programs.Shot Clock: Pre shot clock, the team with the lead had a huge advantage in the last 10 minutes (obviously), forcing the team in the hole to take bigger and bigger risks. This cut both ways, because underdogs could be up late too.
The bigger issue was that size had a huge advantage both because of no shot clock, and because of no 3 point line. The higher profile teams generally had the size, making it harder for lower ranked teams to pull the upset.
With the shot clock, a lot of marginal strategies, like LMU's over-the-top press or Arkansas' 40 minutes of hell, became a lot more effective. In the old days, pressing was a big risk if the other team had a couple of good ballhandlers, because they could play keep away until they got someone wide open under the basket. With a 45, and later a 35, second shot clock, if the press caused a team to burn 15 seconds getting into its offense, it was an effective press, because 20 seconds is not a long time to have to play half court defense.
3 point line: With the 3 point line, EVERYTHING changed. Slower, shorter teams suddenly had a shot if they had a couple of kids that could shoot 3's. Huge upsets became possible, which made it a lot harder to win the 6 games needed to win a National Championship. The 21-10 mid-major conference champ only had to get hot for one game to enter the history books, and many of those kind of teams have.
I would add a few other things making it harder to maintain excellence today than it was 40 or 50 years ago:
1) AAU - AAU is more pervasive than it was 30 or 40 years ago. This means the talent level is deeper for the second, third and fourth tier programs.
2) Foreign Players - The arrival of the foreign players in the 80's had an immediate impact. Olajuwon was the biggest name, but players like Andrew Gaze and Nadav Henefeld transformed their programs, and the college game. By the end of the 90's, and beyond, college basketball played a more passing and shooting style rather than simply taking it to the hole style.
3) Analytics - these have changed every major sport at every level. There are good coaches everywhere today, and mid-major coaches have more and better information to coach with than the top programs had 40 years ago.