Just when you thought you knew...

[bendm]

There’s only one reason why Georgetown is a historic program, and that is because Georgetown is where Patrick Ewing decided to go to play college basketball. If he had gone to UNC or UCLA things would’ve been very different.

Ifs and butts. Same can be said for Kareem and ucla or IU and Isaiah or MSU and magic. If they never won their first chips with those players who knows what they would’ve accomplished.

 

[bendm]

Your ranking requiring an appearance in a final is thus worthless. Remove that and run it again.

Worthless? It’s a bare minimum. The tourney is what matters so If you haven’t won it or appeared in the final multiple times you haven’t accomplished anything. Bama has been good for a couple years, a blip in time. If Oats leaves and they fall off Bamas bball accomplishments (1 final four?) will not be remembered. All I’ll remember is Brandon miller.

 

[bendm]

It has nothing to do with that at all. It's simply true. Kansas has won several (and no the Helms do not count). Do you think that somehow winning one championship makes Cal a better program than Houston or Purdue? Or Oregon with their one win in 1939? Loyola-Chicago is a power program? It's ridiculous.

I am quite confident that no title programs Alabama, Houston, Auburn, Wisconsin & Texas, are considered as better programs than LaSalle, Loyola-Chicago and Cal. So is Creighton for that matter. Now if you want to argue that the 13 programs that both win consistently and win titles (every multi-title team except San Francisco and Cincinatti qualifies) are the top of the heap, I agree completely. But there's a lot of never won a title programs far ahead of some that have won one and those two that won two. Would you rather be a Texas or Auburn fan over your adult life or a San Francisco fan? Over the last 20 years it's been better to be a Purdue fan than an IU fan.

No, no one is saying you should care about Cal and San Fran winning a chip or 2 when only 16 teams made the tourney and it was seeded based on geography.

Hell we should only really care about post-1984 tourney success when the field expanded to 64 but post-1975 is still an accurate reflection of modern success while throwing the traditionalists a bone. Just look at the list it speaks for itself. KU is #4 right ahead UConn how can you argue with that.

 

[superjohn]

It has nothing to do with that at all. It's simply true. Kansas has won several (and no the Helms do not count). Do you think that somehow winning one championship makes Cal a better program than Houston or Purdue? Or Oregon with their one win in 1939? Loyola-Chicago is a power program? It's ridiculous.

I am quite confident that no title programs Alabama, Houston, Auburn, Wisconsin & Texas, are considered as better programs than LaSalle, Loyola-Chicago and Cal. So is Creighton for that matter. Now if you want to argue that the 13 programs that both win consistently and win titles (every multi-title team except San Francisco and Cincinatti qualifies) are the top of the heap, I agree completely. But there's a lot of never won a title programs far ahead of some that have won one and those two that won two. Would you rather be a Texas or Auburn fan over your adult life or a San Francisco fan? Over the last 20 years it's been better to be a Purdue fan than an IU fan.

I think it's hilarious you think all-time wins are more important than NCAA national championships. Temple is 6th in all-time wins, UConn is 22nd. Tell us about how great Temple is.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

There’s only one reason why Georgetown is a historic program, and that is because Georgetown is where Patrick Ewing decided to go to play college basketball. If he had gone to UNC or UCLA things would’ve been very different.

There's only one reason why UConn is a historic program, and that is because Jim Calhoun decided to coach there. If he had gone to another school UConn would have never made a final four let alone won six championships. Hurley wouldn't have gone there either and they would be the same as UMass

But history happened and here we are

 

[Waquoit]

Pitino is doing his job. The NY Post is all-in on SJU and it must be more than hype. Most of the Johnnies articles are behind a paywall now.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think it's hilarious you think all-time wins are more important than NCAA national championships. Temple is 6th in all-time wins, UConn is 22nd. Tell us about how great Temple is.

I don't think it's more important. I think it's a factor. If had to pick one metric it would probably NCAA tournament games played. That reflects consistent excellence in getting in (which matters a lot) and deep runs. Conference championships matter as well (regular season > tournament).

No, no one is saying you should care about Cal and San Fran winning a chip or 2 when only 16 teams made the tourney and it was seeded based on geography.

Hell we should only really care about post-1984 tourney success when the field expanded to 64 but post-1975 is still an accurate reflection of modern success while throwing the traditionalists a bone. Just look at the list it speaks for itself. KU is #4 right ahead UConn how can you argue with that.

I agree the era that matters most is the 64 team era. But reaching a final isn't critical to be a good program. Bama still hasn't done it. Texas and Notre Dame haven't done it yet have each played in over 80 NCAA tournament games and won 40. Is San Diego State more successful (26 games, 11 wins)?

I wish I could sort this by games played and eliminate at least everything pre 1975 and see what the results are. Guarantee UConn would be quite high.

 

[bendm]

I don't think it's more important. I think it's a factor. If had to pick one metric it would probably NCAA tournament games played. That reflects consistent excellence in getting in (which matters a lot) and deep runs. Conference championships matter as well (regular season > tournament).

I agree the era that matters most is the 64 team era. But reaching a final isn't critical to be a good program. Bama still hasn't done it. Texas and Notre Dame haven't done it yet have each played in over 80 NCAA tournament games and won 40. Is San Diego State more successful (26 games, 11 wins)?

I wish I could sort this by games played and eliminate at least everything pre 1975 and see what the results are. Guarantee UConn would be quite high.

Sure, my rankings could be more inclusive but it wouldn’t change the top ~20 given that winning in the latter rounds and especially winning the chip should be accorded more weight than just getting a bid. That’s why I made the cut off either winning a chip or appearing in 2 finals (because I had to include Zags and Houston). The next tier of schools would be Purdue, Georgia Tech, OSU, Texas Tech, Memphis, Illinois, Wisconsin etc but they aren’t legitimized historically until they actually win the whole thing.

 

[Cheddie]

There's only one reason why UConn is a historic program, and that is because Jim Calhoun decided to coach there. If he had gone to another school UConn would have never made a final four let alone won six championships. Hurley wouldn't have gone there either and they would be the same as UMass

But history happened and here we are

UConn had a regionally illustrious program in the 60's until the administration led it wither on the vine.

Per Wiki - Fred Shabel's teams won four Yankee Conference championships in four years, leading to three NCAA tournament berths. By the mid-1960s, UConn had appeared in the NCAA tournament 11 times, second most in the country.

Two great players: Toby Kimball played in the NBA nine years, averaging a double-double one year. Wes Bialosuknia still holds UConn scoring records. He was 2nd in the ABA in 3-point shooting %.

After the 1966–67 season, Shabel stepped down as head coach to become the athletic director at Penn. He later attributed the move to the school's ambivalence about committing greater financial resources to athletics, including the administration's decision to decline an invitation to the NIT in 1966 without consulting him.

 

[jibsey]

Pitino is doing his job. The NY Post is all-in on SJU and it must be more than hype. Most of the Johnnies articles are behind a paywall now.

NY Post? A real news and sports icon. 3/4 of what they print is innuendo, rumors and lies. And I’m being generous.

 

[superjohn]

NY Post? A real news and sports icon. 3/4 of what they print is innuendo, rumors and lies. And I’m being generous.

The Post has always had a great sports section and they've always been the best place for NY sports teams coverage.

 

[Jbirdp5]

Georgetown is a historic program with big John and Ewing for one generation and then iverson in the next generation. I was a kid during the iverson generation and he made them nationally relevant. Since that point they don’t have any great history to write home about but to the two generations of people who were cbb fans in the 80s and 90s I’d call them a historic program.

 

[Waquoit]

NY Post? A real news and sports icon. 3/4 of what they print is innuendo, rumors and lies. And I’m being generous.

I hate the Post. But the sports page is a bellweather for what's hot on the NY sports scene.

 

[NJHusky]

This is the crux of the argument.

We got eliminated in the second round of the tournament and this board reacted as if we had a horrifically bad season.

St John's gets eliminated in the second round of the tournament and we're acting like they should have a parade.

But their fans are acting like they won the whole thing

 

[NJHusky]

I recall there being a thread when Cooley was about to take the job and the merits of the Gtown program were discussed at length.
I wonder if we have enough of a big east bias which may make the program seem more meaningful.
I think Georgetown would only classify as historic because of the definition of the word. It was waaaay in the past. We wouldn't call Baylor bball historic simply because they have had their "80's georgetown-esque" success recently.

I think a big part of Georgetown being a historic program is that Big John was the first African American coach to win a title. Plus they made the FF4 3 times with a player like Ewing. After that they had some moderate success with Iverson, Motumbo and Mourning that ended in the early 90s

They were really relevant for a 10 year run….after that how are they different than St. John’s?

 

[NJHusky]

I hate the Post. But the sports page is a bellweather for what's hot on NY sports scene.

When I commuted into NYC it was WSJ in the am and Post in the pm.

 

[Jaydumo20]

When I commuted into NYC it was WSJ in the am and Post in the pm.

I miss the national and the sporting news dearly.

 

[Jaydumo20]

I think a big part of Georgetown being a historic program is that Big John was the first African American coach to win a title. Plus they made the FF4 3 times with a player like Ewing. After that they had some moderate success with Iverson, Motumbo and Mourning that ended in the early 90s

They were really relevant for a 10 year run….after that how are they different than St. John’s?

I have a soft spot for Georgetown basketball. A good friend of mine in L.A. who worked as an AAU scout and sports writer loves Georgetown but mourned the death of the program every time we spoke. He used to say "we need more than otto porter to return to glory"

 

[jibsey]

The Post has always had a great sports section and they've always been the best place for NY sports teams coverage.

I think Rupert Murdoch and Rick Pitino are wonderful successful people. They deserve each other. The Post has traded in innuendo, slander and lies for years some of it in sports under Murdoch. It’s a half step up from The Enquirer. They have some decent writers as any paper that size would. You want to separate that out and call it a great sports section go ahead.

 

[superjohn]

I think Rupert Murdoch and Rick Pitino are wonderful successful people. They deserve each other. The Post has traded in innuendo, slander and lies for years some of it in sports under Murdoch. It’s a half step up from The Enquirer. They have some decent writers as any paper that size would. You want to separate that out and call it a great sports section go ahead.

And they've always had a great sports section. Best coverage of NY teams by far.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I don't think it's more important. I think it's a factor. If had to pick one metric it would probably NCAA tournament games played. That reflects consistent excellence in getting in (which matters a lot) and deep runs. Conference championships matter as well (regular season > tournament).

I agree the era that matters most is the 64 team era. But reaching a final isn't critical to be a good program. Bama still hasn't done it. Texas and Notre Dame haven't done it yet have each played in over 80 NCAA tournament games and won 40. Is San Diego State more successful (26 games, 11 wins)?

I wish I could sort this by games played and eliminate at least everything pre 1975 and see what the results are. Guarantee UConn would be quite high.

It is nice and perhaps trendy to get all statistical about ranking 'programs' or team's success over the years. # of NCAA games is determined by winning enough to make the tournament, seeding often improved by winning conference tournaments and of course accumulating NCAA wins means some good things happen. But that metric weighs all NCAA wins the same, so a first round win is just as valued as making the sweet sixteen or final four? And of course it doesn't account for extraordinary successes, for example a 6-0 record in title games or a 12-1 record in final four games