Top 25 Women's Basketball Programs of All Time

[triaddukefan]

My system for the teams who have played for the National Championship based on -championship wins- runner ups- final four appearances -an elite 8 appearances.

16 programs have won at least one championship. Another 15 programs have played in at least one championship without winning.those are my 31 teams worthy of consideration. (The number beside each team are for: number of championships- number of runner ups - number of FF appearances and number of E8 appearances.)
1. UConn : 11-1-23-28
2. Tenn 8-5-18-28
3. Stanford: 3-2-15-22
4. LaTech 2-4-10-16 (+ pre-NCAA success)
5. Notre Dame 2-5-9-10

6. SCar 3-0-6-8
…Baylor 3-0-4-10
8. SoCal 2-1-3-7 (+ pre-NCAA success)
9. ODU 1-1-3-5 (+ pre-NCAA success)
10. LSU 1-0-6-11.
11.Maryland 1-0-5-11
12 Texas 1-0-3-12
13. Purdue 1-1-3-8
14 UNC 1-0-3-7
15. TxTech 1-0-1-4
16. TxA&M 1-0-1-3

NON-CHAMPIONS
17 Auburn 0-3-3-6

18 UGA 0-2-5-11
19 duke 0-2-4-11
20 Louisville 0-2-4-8
21 Iowa 0-2-3-6
22 MsSt 0-2-2-4

23 UVA 0-1-3-7
24 Rutgers 0-1-2-7
25 tOSU 0-1-1-4
25.Oklahoma 0-1-3-3
…..Western Kentucky 1-3-3


Honorable mention at 1 championship appearance and no other E8 appearances: Cheney, Mich St, Syracuse, AZ St,

Done on cell phone.Feel free to point out mistakes.

I don't like your rankings.

 

[visitingcock]

I don't like your rankings.

I don’t “ like” them either because it doesn’t rank SCar number one. Nevertheless, the rankings are what they are based upon an objective methodology . Of course, other objective methodology could produce different results.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I'm trying to decide in my head which is more valuable:

consistently making the NCAA tournament but not having much to show for it.

OR

A flash in the pan program which has a couple of years of success where they make it far into the tournament and/or win it all but struggle to make the tournament in the years surrounding that success (Mississippi State, Arizona, etc.)

I would argue the second is more valuable since it helps programs get their name out there. I would also say that anything below final four tends to not get remembered in the history books (unless your a hardcore fan). But we do tend to have a soft spot for those programs which are consistent sweet 16 teams (Louisville, etc.) so I think there is also something valuable to moderate success over a long period of time.

All in all, I would probably add a little more weight to teams that make sweet 16s and beyond if I were making a ranking system.

Top 25 Women’s College Basketball Programs

• based solely on NCAA Div I Tournaments

Alternative# Points System : R64: 01 | R32: 02 | S16: 05 | E8: 07 | F4: 09 | F2: 09 | NC: 13 | UNC: 15 |
# S16+ have higher points than prior points system

• 1. UConn : PTS: 319 | R64: 35 | R32: 33 | S16: 31 | E8: 28 | F4: 23 | F2: 12 | NC: 11 | UNC: 06 |
• 2. Tennessee : PTS: 316 | R64: 42 | R32: 40 | S16: 36 | E8: 28 | F4: 18 | F2: 13 | NC: 08 | UNC: 01 |
• 3. Stanford : PTS: 244 | R64: 37 | R32: 34 | S16: 29 | E8: 22 | F4: 15 | F2: 05 | NC: 03 | UNC: 00 |
• 4. Louisiana Tech : PTS: 167 | R64: 27 | R32: 20 | S16: 20 | E8: 16 | F4: 10 | F2: 06 | NC: 02 | UNC: 00 |
• 5. Notre Dame : PTS: 160 | R64: 29 | R32: 25 | S16: 20 | E8: 10 | F4: 09 | F2: 07 | NC: 02 | UNC: 00 |
• 6. Georgia : PTS: 157 | R64: 36 | R32: 29 | S16: 20 | E8: 11 | F4: 05 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 7. Texas : PTS: 153 | R64: 36 | R32: 27 | S16: 18 | E8: 12 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 01 |
• 8. Maryland : PTS: 142 | R64: 31 | R32: 27 | S16: 16 | E8: 11 | F4: 05 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 9. LSU : PTS: 137 | R64: 29 | R32: 24 | S16: 16 | E8: 10 | F4: 06 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 10. (Tie) Duke : PTS: 136 | R64: 26 | R32: 26 | S16: 18 | E8: 11 | F4: 04 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 10. (Tie) North Carolina : PTS: 136 | R64: 31 | R32: 27 | S16: 18 | E8: 07 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 12. Baylor : PTS: 133 | R64: 22 | R32: 21 | S16: 16 | E8: 10 | F4: 04 | F2: 03 | NC: 03 | UNC: 01 |
• 13. South Carolina : PTS: 121 | R64: 20 | R32: 17 | S16: 14 | E8: 08 | F4: 06 | F2: 03 | NC: 03 | UNC: 01 |
• 14. Purdue : PTS: 113 | R64: 27 | R32: 24 | S16: 12 | E8: 08 | F4: 03 | F2: 02 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 15. NC State : PTS: 111 | R64: 29 | R32: 24 | S16: 16 | E8: 03 | F4: 02 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 16. Louisville : PTS: 106 | R64: 26 | R32: 20 | S16: 12 | E8: 08 | F4: 04 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 17. Vanderbilt : PTS: 105 | R64: 28 | R32: 23 | S16: 14 | E8: 05 | F4: 01 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 18. Virginia : PTS: 102 | R64: 25 | R32: 21 | S16: 12 | E8: 07 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 19. (Tie) Iowa : PTS: 101 | R64: 30 | R32: 23 | S16: 10 | E8: 06 | F4: 03 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 19. (Tie) Ohio State : PTS: 101 | R64: 28 | R32: 24 | S16: 13 | E8: 04 | F4: 01 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 21. Rutgers : PTS: 99 | R64: 26 | R32: 18 | S16: 11 | E8: 07 | F4: 02 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 22. Old Dominion : PTS: 98 | R64: 25 | R32: 17 | S16: 12 | E8: 05 | F4: 03 | F2: 02 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 23. Penn State : PTS: 95 | R64: 25 | R32: 23 | S16: 13 | E8: 04 | F4: 01 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 24. USC : PTS: 94 | R64: 18 | R32: 15 | S16: 11 | E8: 07 | F4: 03 | F2: 03 | NC: 02 | UNC: 00 |
• 25. Auburn : PTS: 88 | R64: 22 | R32: 18 | S16: 10 | E8: 06 | F4: 03 | F2: 03 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |

In the running:

• 26. Oklahoma : PTS: 86 | R64: 24 | R32: 20 | S16: 10 | E8: 03 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 27. Texas Tech : PTS: 83 | R64: 20 | R32: 16 | S16: 11 | E8: 04 | F4: 01 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 28. Mississippi : PTS: 77 | R64: 20 | R32: 14 | S16: 11 | E8: 05 | F4: 00 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 29. Texas A&M : PTS: 71 | R64: 18 | R32: 14 | S16: 09 | E8: 03 | F4: 01 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
• 30. Long Beach State : PTS: 71 | R64: 12 | R32: 12 | S16: 09 | E8: 06 | F4: 02 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 31. UCLA : PTS: 66 | R64: 19 | R32: 16 | S16: 09 | E8: 02 | F4: 00 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
• 32. Washington : PTS: 62 | R64: 19 | R32: 14 | S16: 07 | E8: 03 | F4: 01 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |