- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 5,667
- Reaction Score
- 20,054
Might factor all time win/loss records.
Top 25 Women's Basketball Programs of All Time
- Thread starter LwrcasefaN
- Start date
KnightBridgeAZ
Grand Canyon Knight
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,305
- Reaction Score
- 9,003
I agree with some points made. No, I wouldn't include teams like Delta State or Immaculata, they had truly no longevity. La Tech and ODU had good longevity, not necessarily at the highest level, but arguably over 20 years of respectable success. I think ranking the greatest programs of all time, as was pointed out above, is dependent on what factors you value.
The only thing that leapt out at me was I thought Purdue was a bit high. As someone else said - JMU? Not sure on that. A case could be made for Oklahoma as someone pointed out. Although Auburn had a very good run under Joe Ciampi, I think it is difficult to rank them over other programs with perhaps longer term success. It is all a very tough call.
The only thing that leapt out at me was I thought Purdue was a bit high. As someone else said - JMU? Not sure on that. A case could be made for Oklahoma as someone pointed out. Although Auburn had a very good run under Joe Ciampi, I think it is difficult to rank them over other programs with perhaps longer term success. It is all a very tough call.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2018
- Messages
- 474
- Reaction Score
- 1,153
South Carolina is a bit too high. I think they’re weighting championships too heavily.
We’re 34th in tourney bids and 16th in Sweet Sixteens. Maybe they gave us a bump because our coach is undefeated in title games?
We’re 34th in tourney bids and 16th in Sweet Sixteens. Maybe they gave us a bump because our coach is undefeated in title games?
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2018
- Messages
- 988
- Reaction Score
- 3,118
JMU is on there because of number of wins. However, JMU has been playing basketball for 100 years. Schools like UConn and SC have been playing for 48 years.
KnightBridgeAZ
Grand Canyon Knight
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,305
- Reaction Score
- 9,003
Maybe they also deserve credit for being such a pioneer of the game, as well. Rutgers has been at it for just over 50 years, I actually was in school when they hired Grentz as the first "full time" WBB coach in the country, but it was the program's 3rd year.
Arizona also started regular Women's Basketball 50 years ago, with a lot of unsuccessful years. Interesting that past coaches have included June Olkowski (retired number at Rutgers as a player), Wendy Larry (before ODU) and Niya Butts. The only long term success before Adia was under Joan Bonvicini. Previously it was what we now call a club sport, which did play (apparently among others) ASU annually.
CamrnCrz1974
Good Guy for a Dookie
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,044
- Reaction Score
- 11,942
In its history, Baylor has made 4 Final Fours, with 3 National Titles, plus 13 conference regular season championships and 11 conference tournament championships.
In its history, Notre Dame has made 9 Final Fours, with 2 National Titles, plus 16 conference regular season championships and 11 conference tournament championships.
In terms of sustained excellence, I would rank Notre Dame ahead of Baylor.
UcMiami
How it is
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 14,143
- Reaction Score
- 46,887
Personally I wouldn't rank runner-up any differently than FF and I wouldn't rank first round loser any higher than second round loser.
Nice chart. I would tend to give the same points for FF and runner-up. So much depends on match-ups and often the team that loses in the semis to the eventual winner is likely the second best team at the FF. Do 10 for the winner, 7 for the 3 other FF, 4 for elite 8, 2 for S16, and 1 being in the tournament the first weekend.
As for conference championships/regular season championships - for teams (outside the power 6 conferences) that is baked into tournament appearances. And back when the tournament was smaller was the whole field.
I think the OP list isn't bad when you consider the breadth of AIAW and NCAA And agree that teams like Immaculta/Delta State while both incredible stories and pioneers of the game haven't been relevant in a very long time. You can quibble about a few places in the order and I am curious as others at how JMU and to some degree WKU made the list but assume it gets into their true pioneer status 100 years ago and their continued appearances in the NCAAs. WKU at least had 3 NCAA FF appearances.
Nice chart. I would tend to give the same points for FF and runner-up. So much depends on match-ups and often the team that loses in the semis to the eventual winner is likely the second best team at the FF. Do 10 for the winner, 7 for the 3 other FF, 4 for elite 8, 2 for S16, and 1 being in the tournament the first weekend.
As for conference championships/regular season championships - for teams (outside the power 6 conferences) that is baked into tournament appearances. And back when the tournament was smaller was the whole field.
I think the OP list isn't bad when you consider the breadth of AIAW and NCAA And agree that teams like Immaculta/Delta State while both incredible stories and pioneers of the game haven't been relevant in a very long time. You can quibble about a few places in the order and I am curious as others at how JMU and to some degree WKU made the list but assume it gets into their true pioneer status 100 years ago and their continued appearances in the NCAAs. WKU at least had 3 NCAA FF appearances.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 5,667
- Reaction Score
- 20,054
P
love your charts. Can you do an update, of 2014 - 2024 tourneys) (11 years but only 10 tournaments.) maybe start a new threads since it’s not completely on topic for this one
Thanks
love your charts. Can you do an update, of 2014 - 2024 tourneys) (11 years but only 10 tournaments.) maybe start a new threads since it’s not completely on topic for this one
Thanks
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,830
- Reaction Score
- 26,666
I agree about the conf. titles. But should greatness be measured only by play during 3 weeks in March/April? Last year SCar went undefeated. That should matter even more than the NCAA title. It's really just a tournament title and not a "best team of the year" award even though most think of it that way. But then I lived at a time where the teams with the top regular season records played for the title. No wild cards, no multilevel playoffs. It was regular season and either a world series or a game for the title. Pennant races were exciting then.
The NCAA's haven't always been a 64 team tournament. Nowadays teams get in with 20-10 records. You shouldn't award "greatness" points for mediocrity.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2024
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction Score
- 798
Top 25 Women’s College Basketball Programs
- based solely on NCAA Div I Tournaments
- 1. Tennessee : PTS: 181 | R64: 42 | R32: 40 | S16: 36 | E8: 28 | F4: 18 | F2: 13 | NC: 08 | UNC: 01 |
- 2. UConn : PTS: 178 | R64: 35 | R32: 33 | S16: 31 | E8: 28 | F4: 23 | F2: 12 | NC: 11 | UNC: 06 |
- 3. Stanford : PTS: 143 | R64: 37 | R32: 34 | S16: 29 | E8: 22 | F4: 15 | F2: 05 | NC: 03 | UNC: 00 |
- 4. Georgia : PTS: 101 | R64: 36 | R32: 29 | S16: 20 | E8: 11 | F4: 05 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 5. Texas : PTS: 99 | R64: 36 | R32: 27 | S16: 18 | E8: 12 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 01 |
- 6. (Tie) Notre Dame : PTS: 97 | R64: 29 | R32: 25 | S16: 20 | E8: 10 | F4: 09 | F2: 07 | NC: 02 | UNC: 00 |
- 6. (Tie) Louisiana Tech : PTS: 97 | R64: 27 | R32: 20 | S16: 20 | E8: 16 | F4: 10 | F2: 06 | NC: 02 | UNC: 00 |
- 8. Maryland : PTS: 92 | R64: 31 | R32: 27 | S16: 16 | E8: 11 | F4: 05 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 9. North Carolina : PTS: 88 | R64: 31 | R32: 27 | S16: 18 | E8: 07 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 10. LSU : PTS: 87 | R64: 29 | R32: 24 | S16: 16 | E8: 10 | F4: 06 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 11. Duke : PTS: 85 | R64: 26 | R32: 26 | S16: 18 | E8: 11 | F4: 04 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 12. Baylor : PTS: 80 | R64: 22 | R32: 21 | S16: 16 | E8: 10 | F4: 04 | F2: 03 | NC: 03 | UNC: 01 |
- 13. Purdue : PTS: 76 | R64: 27 | R32: 24 | S16: 12 | E8: 08 | F4: 03 | F2: 02 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 14. NC State : PTS: 74 | R64: 29 | R32: 24 | S16: 16 | E8: 03 | F4: 02 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 15. (Tie) South Carolina : PTS: 72 | R64: 20 | R32: 17 | S16: 14 | E8: 08 | F4: 06 | F2: 03 | NC: 03 | UNC: 01 |
- 15. (Tie) Iowa : PTS: 72 | R64: 30 | R32: 23 | S16: 10 | E8: 06 | F4: 03 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 17. Vanderbilt : PTS: 71 | R64: 28 | R32: 23 | S16: 14 | E8: 05 | F4: 01 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 18. (Tie) Ohio State : PTS: 70 | R64: 28 | R32: 24 | S16: 13 | E8: 04 | F4: 01 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 18. (Tie) Louisville : PTS: 70 | R64: 26 | R32: 20 | S16: 12 | E8: 08 | F4: 04 | F2: 02 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 20. Virginia : PTS: 68 | R64: 25 | R32: 21 | S16: 12 | E8: 07 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 21. Rutgers : PTS: 66 | R64: 26 | R32: 18 | S16: 11 | E8: 07 | F4: 02 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 22. Penn State : PTS: 65 | R64: 25 | R32: 23 | S16: 13 | E8: 04 | F4: 01 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 23. Old Dominion : PTS: 64 | R64: 25 | R32: 17 | S16: 12 | E8: 05 | F4: 03 | F2: 02 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 24. Oklahoma : PTS: 60 | R64: 24 | R32: 20 | S16: 10 | E8: 03 | F4: 03 | F2: 01 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 25. Auburn : PTS: 59 | R64: 22 | R32: 18 | S16: 10 | E8: 06 | F4: 03 | F2: 03 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 26. USC : PTS: 58 | R64: 18 | R32: 15 | S16: 11 | E8: 07 | F4: 03 | F2: 03 | NC: 02 | UNC: 00 |
- 27. Texas Tech : PTS: 54 | R64: 20 | R32: 16 | S16: 11 | E8: 04 | F4: 01 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 28. Mississippi : PTS: 50 | R64: 20 | R32: 14 | S16: 11 | E8: 05 | F4: 00 | F2: 00 | NC: nn | UNC: 00 |
- 29. (Tie) Florida State : PTS: 47 | R64: 22 | R32: 17 | S16: 05 | E8: 03 | F4: 00 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 29. (Tie) Texas A&M : PTS: 47 | R64: 18 | R32: 14 | S16: 09 | E8: 03 | F4: 01 | F2: 01 | NC: 01 | UNC: 00 |
- 31. UCLA : PTS: 46 | R64: 19 | R32: 16 | S16: 09 | E8: 02 | F4: 00 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
- 32. Iowa State : PTS: 45 | R64: 22 | R32: 14 | S16: 06 | E8: 02 | F4: 01 | F2: 00 | NC: 00 | UNC: 00 |
I would definitely characterize the current ASU WBB as a club sport. Moving to the Big 12 I think it's close to a lock that Adair will lead the team to their third consecutive 20 loss season
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction Score
- 3,554
The problem I have with this approach is that it rewards longevity a bit too much. Before about 1990(ish), there wasn’t much competition outside of a few elite schools. Real upsets were few and far between, and it was easier to advance against weaker competition. I also think points need to be worth more for final fours and national championships. And there should be bonus points for consecutive national championships.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction Score
- 3,554
And one other note…from Wiki:
The championship consisted of 32 teams from 1982 to 1985 (in 1983, 36), 40 teams from 1986 to 1988, and 48 teams from 1989 to 1993. From 1994 to 2021, 64 teams competed in each tournament.
This makes the application of points across rounds uneven for tournaments prior to 1994.
en.wikipedia.org
The championship consisted of 32 teams from 1982 to 1985 (in 1983, 36), 40 teams from 1986 to 1988, and 48 teams from 1989 to 1993. From 1994 to 2021, 64 teams competed in each tournament.
This makes the application of points across rounds uneven for tournaments prior to 1994.
NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2024
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction Score
- 798
Results are based on a methodology suggested in this post, partly from this post and adding a point for going undefeated. TN barely edges UConn.
If the described parameter set (weights by NCAAT Results) is changed to give more weight to F4+ results, UConn comes on top of TN.
With your post, you are advocating for fractional weights to earlier NCAATs, based on a value judgment that requires fractional weights (value?) be assigned to earlier (which ones?) NCAAT results.
The results here and the underlying methodology are illustrative. There will always be unresolvable beholder problems.
Perhaps the real lament is that during the relatively short period of the NCAAT, there are not enough long-lived and durable programs to prevent UConn, TN and Stanford to be the clear cut programs above the field.
PS1: The results show 32 teams in rank order. You can infer the results of a simply tweaked methodology to filter out some teams.
PS2: If you prefer to build another model, a tab (“Result by School and by Year”) on an earlier-posted link (NCAA Div I Tournaments) shows NCAAT results for all years and in total by school.
PS3: Points prior to 1994 per your post here are handled via the demarcation among the levels of NCAAT results in the data in PS2. For example, the number of NCs is the number of cumulative NC’s minus the number of cumulative undefeated NC’s. The number of F2’s, F4’s, E8’s, etc. are determined recursively and points are awarded to the R64s, R32s, etc. determined thus.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction Score
- 3,554
First off, apologies, I think my original response sounded a little more harsh than I intended. No matter how you slice it, it still comes down to ‘what do you value’. For me, the 11th national championships are probably the deciding factor. The one that isn’t measurable is that Geno built a program from scratch. He had to convince kids to come to UConn instead of Stanford and Tennessee. Dawn has been doing that lately. UConn, Tennessee and Stanford (with a nod to Georgia) to me are the standard bearers in the NCAA era. One other thing…it really is all about the coaches. I can see Vanderbilt being discussed 20 years from now.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2024
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction Score
- 798
I didn’t find anything in your post harsh and agree with what you value.
I was agnostic with the results even with the mild surprise that TN edged UConn, which will be short lived. I mildly resisted using alternative weights described above, which I find more persuasive, to avoid charges of bias.
The methodology above can be used to rank coaching careers. As of now, Geno’s is the clear-cut #1 coaching career.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2020
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction Score
- 3,552
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.
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.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 5,667
- Reaction Score
- 20,054
My system for the teams who have played for the National Championship at least once 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.
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.
Last edited:
nwhoopfan
hopeless West Coast homer
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 29,862
- Reaction Score
- 56,790
Are you sure about that? Arizona was in a Championship Game, pretty sure Arizona St. never was.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 5,667
- Reaction Score
- 20,054
Beer by the pool on the cell phone.?Arizona and Barnes it is. And yes, I do consider a runner up more important than a final four team like us and UConn that year.