Top Men's Basketball Programs All Time

[jibsey]

I‘m just happy to have 5 titles and some schools like North Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky have been treated like greatest program gods by the media for a long time, deserving or not. We will be getting good coverage and more respect now with number 5, but there’s something about this ranking thing I don’t like.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

Going forward I expect Hurley will have us in the tournament nearly every year, barring a barrage of freak injuries. And with the portal, theres really no excuses to not be able to reload year after year nowadays.

Calhoun didn’t have that luxury; you had to bat nearly 1.000 in recruiting, but that’s hard to do when you are mainly recruiting in that 30-75ish range. Some of them are bound to turn into a Jamaal Coombs-McDaniel caliber player instead of a Jordan Hawkins

Eh, Calhoun won a championship where if the portal was a thing he could’ve brought in people over the young kids that played a big part.

He probably batted a good .800 on his recruits being ready to contribute immediately. Even higher if they were actually meant to be good.

 

[gtcam]

These arguments and rankings are really ridiculous
UCLA was the top dog in the pre 80's years - hands down - nobody was close
80's to 90's - I would say Duke but UNC/Kentucky may have some say
1999 to present - it has to be UConn
Going forward - if the transfer portal becomes the norm - nobody is going to dominate

 

[Horatio]

That 2009 Final Four, Dyson knee injury banner means a lot to me and it’s hanging near the others. That’s all I got.

 

[Nick2005]

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Duke

5. UCLA
6. UConn
7. Indiana



8. Villanova
9. Louisville
10. Michigan State

I think if you put them into tiers, 1-4 are the indisputable top 4 of all time. Maybe you will disagree with my order, but I think it is very difficult to say that any programs outside of the top 4 could be placed above UK, UNC, Kansas, and Duke. Next tier is UCLA, UConn, then Indiana. Big gap between those top 7 and the next highest of Nova, UL, and Mich St.

Titles to me are by far the most important factor but I do look at other things matter as well. When it comes to the NCAA tournament, 3 things matter, in order of importance:

NCAA tournament
1. National Championships
2. All-time NCAA Tournament Wins/ Win Percentage
3. All-time NCAA Tournament Appearances

I don't even really care about Final Fours because losing in FF isn't a good thing. For example, Kansas has 16 FF and only 4 titles, whereas UConn has 6 FF and 5 titles (10-1 FF record). In my opinion, UConn's FF/title stats are more impressive compared to Kansas. I also don't care much for seeding because it can be very subjective.

Then, I'd say with Regular Season, things to do with conference and national factors. For conference related things, in order of importance like Conference Regular Season Championships, Conference Tournament Championships.

Regular Season (Conference)
1. Conference Tournament Championships
2. Conference Regular Season Championships
3. Conference Awards, All Conference, POY, FOY, COY, etc.

Regular Season (National)
1. All-American, National POY, National COY etc.
2. AP Poll appearances

I'm sure I'm missing some but as a diehard UConn fan trying to be as objective as possible, I think UConn should be considered the 6th best program of all time. I so badly want to convince myself they are above UCLA, the trickiest program to rank all time, but 11 national championships is still 11 and if I give UConn a ton of credit I have to give it to UCLA as well.

What do you guys think? I’m curious to know!

5 and 6 should be 1 and 2.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

That 2009 Final Four, Dyson knee injury banner means a lot to me and it’s hanging near the others. That’s all I got.

AJ Price would’ve been perfect for 2006 if it wasn’t for his battle with AVM. Would’ve been his sophomore year.

 

[SubbaBub]

This again? Pre/post 64 team bracket are two different sports. If you are a Wooden worshipper you can start with him instead but that only affects UCLA.

If you include cheating, UNC and Kentucky have major problems, but I don't include that. It's too complex.

The correcg rankings are

Duke
UNC
UConn
Kansas
Kentucky

Everyone else.

 

[ucp990411]

Eh, Calhoun won a championship where if the portal was a thing he could’ve brought in people over the young kids that played a big part.

He probably batted a good .800 on his recruits being ready to contribute immediately. Even higher if they were actually meant to be good.

.800 is a pretty high percentage. You must not have followed recruiting during the Calhoun years. Remember Scott Hazleton, Michael LeBlanc, Richie Ashemeade, Jonathon Mandledove, Uri Cohen Mintz, Antric Klaiber etc?

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

.800 is a pretty high percentage. You must not have followed recruiting during the Calhoun years. Remember Scott Hazleton, Michael LeBlanc, Richie Ashemeade, Jonathon Mandledove, Uri Cohen Mintz, Antric Klaiber etc?

Yeah probably some hyperbole to it.

But here’s a question, if the transfer portal was a thing, what years would Calhoun had used it and what would positions would he have used it for?

I know the easy one would be an extra guard in 2006 (even though Calhoun recruited AJ price for that but AJ wasn’t available then).

 

[Umami Zen]

Would be interesting to know the following.. Since the Tournament field expanded to 64 in 1985.. The winning percentages for the teams (and eventual National Champs)-- once they reached the Final Four-- among the cast of characters you would expect to be there like UNC/Kentucky/Duke/Mich St/Kansas.. to name a few. Just in those two games..Not the entire Tournament run since they obviously "won out" to make the FF..For example-- Might find that Duke's winning percentage (for those games) is lower than you might think..

My guess is you would find that the efficiency of UConn's participation(success) in the FF/National Championships in that period of time is superior to most--if not all-- of the "Top Men's Basketball Programs".. UCLA has been omitted by virtue of the fact of the difference in the size of the fields during the Wooden years.

IMO... Simply another way of defining "Top Programs".. Did not suggest a comparison since 1999 to present because it would bias the results towards UConn.
"

 

[jibsey]

Would be interesting to know the following.. Since the Tournament field expanded to 64 in 1985.. The winning percentages for the teams (and eventual National Champs)-- once they reached the Final Four-- among the cast of characters you would expect to be there like UNC/Kentucky/Duke/Mich St/Kansas.. to name a few. Just in those two games..Not the entire Tournament run since they obviously "won out" to make the FF..For example-- Might find that Duke's winning percentage (for those games) is lower than you might think..

My guess is you would find that the efficiency of UConn's participation(success) in the FF/National Championships in that period of time is superior to most--if not all-- of the "Top Men's Basketball Programs".. UCLA has been omitted by virtue of the fact of the difference in the size of the fields during the Wooden years.

IMO... Simply another way of defining "Top Programs".. Did not suggest a comparison since 1999 to present because it would bias the results towards UConn.
"

I remember when UCLA got the best players every year in that long run. Wooden was something else but isn’t it much harder to win now?

 

[Umami Zen]

I remember when UCLA got the best players every year in that long run. Wooden was something else but isn’t it much harder to win now?

I believe it is ..No disrespect to Coach Wooden.. Who was an awesome coach.. Different game/different players/no AAU programs or skills camps to develop guys like today..