The greatest programs: No. 4, UCLA

Posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:28 PM
Filed Under: Greatest hoops programs

No school can match UCLA’s 11 NCAA tournament titles and 18 Final Fours.

The Bruins won 10 of those championships between 1964 and 1975 and established one of sports’ most celebrated dynasties when John Wooden coached legendary players like Lew Alcindor, Bill Walton, Sidney Wicks and Gail Goodrich.

So a simple question remains: How did the celebrated Bruins only land at No. 4 on the list of greatest college basketball programs? In a word, consistency.

UCLA’s place among the elite – college basketball’s elite of Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Indiana – was assured thanks to those titles, but it never again equaled that run under Wooden (who could?). Its basketball fortunes have been uneven ever since, to say nothing of when Wooden first started at UCLA or before him.

The Bruins haven’t suffered in the post-Wooden era. They won it all in ’95 and have been to the last three Final Fours. But that isn’t the same consistency shown by North Carolina, Kentucky and Kansas.

To be clear:

Between the 1963-64 and the 1974-75 seasons, UCLA was 335-14 (.9599 win percentage), with 10 titles and 11 final fours.

The rest of the time: the Bruins’ record is 1,311-705 (.6463), with 1 title and 7 final fours. That’s still impressive, but it’s a record more on par with Arkansas (1,473 wins, .6463 %, 1 title and 6 Final Fours), which is a top 20, but not top 5 program.

UCLA’s overall résumé looks like this:

Its 1,646 victories are 9^th most, while its .6955 win percentage is sixth, better than Duke’s. Its 11 titles are four more than anyone else, and its 18 Final Fours are one more than UNC.
Oddly enough, UCLA is second in NCAA tourney win percentage, just behind Duke at .7368. It’s also second in total tourney appearances (42).
The Bruins’ 30 conference titles are 6^th (more than Duke or Louisville).
They’ve spent an NCAA best 134 weeks atop the AP poll, including four seasons in which they went wire-to-wire.

UCLA owns three of the longest win streaks in NCAA history, including an amazing 88-game run from 1971-1974.
Thirteen Bruins have been All-Americans 19 times. Only Kentucky has more.

This also includes five seasons in the 1980s when UCLA missed the NCAA tournament; when the Bruins had back-to-back losing seasons in 2003 and 2004; and when they lost in the Big Dance’s first round three times in six seasons in the ‘90s.

None of this is meant to overly criticize the Bruins. They’re one of today’s elite teams and one of the all-time great programs. But rankings like there reflect an overall program, not just how it performed in March.

Besides there’s plenty to celebrate in UCLA’s history. And it begins with Wooden.

He coached 27 years at UCLA, starting in 1948 when the Bruins went from 12-13 to 22-7. The Bruins were solid in the ‘50s, yet when Wooden made some small adjustments in the early ‘60s UCLA took off.

Starting with an undersized, up-tempo squad in 1964, the Bruins overwhelmed foes by running them into the ground. Walt Hazzard and Gail Goodrich led the way to an unbeaten 1964 season, while Goodrich’s marvelous 42-point performance in ’65 against Michigan capped back-to-back titles.

The Bruins’ unrelenting press made them tough to stop. When the nation’s best recruit came to town, they became unbeatable.

Lew Alcindor, who later changed his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, spearheaded the truly dominant UCLA era. As a sophomore, he led the Bruins to a 30-0 season, though he was far from the only great player on the roster, which also featured standouts like Lynn Shackleford, Lucius Allen and Mike Warren.

Even when teams managed to beat UCLA, the Bruins always won when it mattered most. By the time Alcindor was a senior, he had put his stamp on college hoops as a three-time MOP of the Final Four and perhaps the best the game would ever see.

He was a breathtaking mix of size, speed, strength and agility, with a devastating hook shot and an intimidating defensive presence. He wasn’t explicitly why the dunk was once banned, but most accounts point to him as the reason. It’s as if people tried to halt UCLA’s dominance, but couldn’t.

Even when Alcindor graduated, the Bruins still beat down foes in the NCAA tourney. Whether it was Sidney Wicks outplaying Artis Gilmore or getting 29 points from Steve Patterson to outlast Villanova in ’71, the Bruins wouldn’t be denied.

And things only got tougher for foes starting the next year when Bill Walton arrived. Behind their star sophomore center and Wilkes, UCLA won its 8^th title and sixth straight. Like death and taxes, the Bruins were the best in March every season.

Walton, like Alcindor, was a singular talent, the kind of player that made everyone around him better behind his defense, passing and stellar low-post game. Leave it to UCLA to bring in players this good nearly every season.

Attracting once-in-a-generation players like Walton and Alcindor ensured the Bruins remained the team to beat and a program unlike anyone’d ever seen in the college game. Most teams hoped for winning streaks. UCLA aimed for unbeaten seasons.

In a way, the Bruins’ era of dominance was capped by Walton’s remarkable performance in the 1973 championship game against Memphis. His 21-of-22 shooting performance (and 13 rebounds) was as close to perfection people had ever seen on the grand stage. Who else but a Bruin?

When the Bruins’ NCAA run ended to David Thompson’s N.C. State Wolfpack in the 1974 Final Four, few knew that just one UCLA title remained. Wooden went out a winner the next season, after beating Kentucky in the title game.

He left a legacy that was impossible to match, though.

Gene Bartow was the first to try. In two years, UCLA went 52-9, won two conference titles and reached a Final Four, but it wasn’t good enough. He left for UAB.

Next was former player and Wooden assistant Gary Cunningham. In two seasons, UCLA was 50-8, won two conference titles and reached an Elite Eight, but it wasn’t enough.

Larry Brown followed. Brown didn’t have the same sterling record (42-17 in two season), but took the Bruins to the 1980 championship game where they almost upset Louisville.

From there it was seven more seasons with ex-players leading the way. Larry Farmer (61-23 overall, but only 1 NCAA tourney berth) and Walt Hazzard (77-47, one NCAA tourney berth) turned what may have been respectable seasons for other schools, but neither lasted in Westwood.

In came Jim Harrick, who put together solid and occasionally great teams. In four years, the Bruins were a contender, grabbing a No. 1 seed in the 1992 tournament before losing to Indiana in the Elite Eight.

By ’95, the Bruins had a balanced, experienced team led by seniors Ed O’Bannon and Tyus Edney. With a little luck (Edney’s full-court scamper against Missouri remains the stuff of March lore) and a lot of O’Bannon, UCLA upended defending champions Arkansas for its first title in 20 years.

Not that it lasted. Princeton ousted the defending champs in the first round the next season, and Harrick was fired for NCAA recruiting violations. UCLA hired assistant Steve Lavin, who could recruit, but wasn’t an accomplished coach. After seven seasons, including a 10-19 campaign in 2002-03, UCLA hired its eight coach since Wooden’s retirement.

And it finally proved to be a stellar hire.

Ben Howland stumbled to start (29-28 in his first two seasons), but hasn’t missed a Final Four in three years. He’s made UCLA one of March’s most dangerous teams and a threat to win a title each season. He may never match Wooden’s team in terms of titles (who could?), but the Bruins are once again one of college basketball’s elite.

It also gives UCLA that rare feat in college hoops – a school that found a worthy successor to the legend that established the program.

Next Tuesday: No. 3 on the list of greatest programs.

No. 15: Michigan State.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

What a load of complete crap. And I suppose Johnny Wooden is fourth or fifth best coach, after Bobby Knight and whoever is todayt's flavor of the month.

To think we waited for months for this drivel. You have no credibility.

11 national championships. The top players. More NBA players than anyone else. Several great coaches.

You seem to be well-qualified to run for Vice President. You surely shouldn't be writing sports.

Malibu Scott (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:40 AM)

As much as I have despised UCLA over the years, I cannot help but agree with Malibu Scott. I had assumed that KY, KS, & NC would be vieing for the runner-up spots. UCLA has won 11 national championships - case closed.

Randal Rist, Bon Aqua, TN (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:56 AM)

Although Malibu Scott is rambling about stuff not pertained to what you wrote, he makes a good point, UCLA is the greatest of all time, Kansas, UNC, and everyone else have had bad stretches at times to count that down to take away from the history of UCLA to move them to #4 I'm thinking you just went for the dramatic factor of saying..."who is #1"

John, MI (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:04 AM)

I guess UCLA's eleven tournament titles don't match up with Kentucky's seven, Carolina's four, or Kansas' three.

I guess it also doesn't matter that UCLA has been to more final fouts than either Kentucky (13), Carolina (17), or Kansas (13).

I guess those two stats don't matter and that all -time wins are the only stat you care about. I can go online and get a list of winningest programs. I don't need you to provide a countdown for that.

It's like you penalized UCLA for having John Wooden. If that's the case, let's not include Coach K for Duke or Bob Knight for Indiana. While we're at it, let's consider only UNC's post-Smith years under that Dougherty character.

Gee whiz.

Matthew, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:00 AM)

Wow...a little disagreement with the blogger and I don't get posted. Good work MSNBC.

I'll say it again, UCLA has more titles and final fours than anyone else.

Period.

Matthew, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:09 AM)

UCLA is clearly #1. I could see a debate between UCLA (11 titles) and Kentucky (7 titles) for all-time with UNC (3 titles) 3rd. But Kansas in this discussion at all? That's just stupid and everyone knows it. Kansas has no business being mentioned in the same breath as those three.

Steve, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:11 AM)

Under Wooden, UCLA was the greatest dynasty the NCAA's ever seen. That's clear. But I think -- and this is why there's going to be disagreements about this project -- is that more matters to a program than NCAA titles and Final Fours.

Is a team the greatest ever because of what they did during a 12-year period before the NCAA tournament expanded and when they still had home games for top seeds, or should a school's entire NCAA history matter? What about conference titles and recent dominance (now that college hoops is more competitive than ever)? UCLA wasn't relevant to college hoops before Wooden and after him it was merely a great program at times, not an elite one. You can't say that about Kentucky, UNC or Kansas.

The great thing about a list like this is it always changes and there's never going to be agreement about who's No. 1. So keep the comments coming.

Mike Miller (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:21 AM)

In response to Mike Miller's post, UCLA dominated for much of two decades, the 1960s and 1970s. They were a bit off in the 1980s but came back in the 1990s and after the turn of this Century. So, we have 4 decades of excellence, two decades of domination. And that's nationally. The last 3 years show they're coming back once again to dominate.

Despite what a lot of you may think (you are all probably young whippersnappers), the NCAA tourney wasn't that big a deal in the 1940s and 1950s. The NIT was a tournament teams often wanted to go to instead. That changed in 1961.

Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky have had a lot of great teams, but none of them have dominated the sport the way UCLA has for the last 40 years.

Case is closed. The author of this blog is another small-minded right coaster who finds nothing of value in California. I am not reading his blogs any more. They are worthless. He doesn't know what he's doing. I'm just visiting now to see what other people out there think of his idiocy.

I won't be reading about the great, ho hum, programs of schools that have managed to eke out WOW 3 NCAA championships. Whoo hooo. Who cares.

Malibu Scott (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:12 AM)

Kansas has no business? They have more victories that UCLA and more conference championships than any team in the history of college basketball. Not to mention both Dean Smith and our hero, Adolph Rupp, played there. I'm a Kentucky fan through and through, but I'm not jaded enough to not give other teams credit where credit is due. I just know our boys should be #1!

Trevor Post, Lexington (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:57 AM)

"Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky have had a lot of great teams, but none of them have dominated the sport the way UCLA has for the last 40 years."

Last 40 years doesn't equal ALL TIME... Basketball has been around since the 1890s.

Also if you change that to the Last 30 years UCLA looks very good, but not elite. I mean they did have back to back LOSING seasons in in 02-03 and 03-04.

Jeff (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:35 PM)

ELEVEN NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS.

I suppose if UCLA had stretched them out over 79 years then UCLA would be the greatest program.

You UCLA bashers are pathetic. How many of the "wins" of the programs you advance were against Mooreland Teachers College and Pawtucket Naval Facility? The Pac-10 and its predecessors were always pretty competitive. Let me see, again. Who won the very first NCAA championship? Was UCLA on its schedule?

ELEVEN NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. In other words, wins against quality.

Rather than measure "success" by bogus wins over nothing teams, let's try a different metric. How about NBA players?

The same disrespect for UCLA that prevented Johnny Wooden from coaching US Olympic teams back in the 60s and 70s seems to be showing its ugly face here, too, with a know-nothing blogger cheerleading other know-nothing bloggers on.

Malibu Scott (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:17 PM)

Mike, What does it take to be number 1? A lot of sweet 16's, final 4's, but low on the number of championships? Low like Kansas, North Carolina. You do a dis-service to this total concept of the list? Do you have any credibility left to judge what a good college basketball program emcompasses.

Mark, Littlestown, PA (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:07 PM)

As a Life long Louisville fan, I was more than ecstatic when the Ville' finished #7 all time. It was right about where I thought they should finish.

The programs ahead of them, UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Duke and Indiana, I thought all rightfully belonged ahead of Louisville. I honestly did not beleive any other team had a legitmate claim to push them any further down the list.

So at the time they were announced as #7, I said, Great list. I can't wait for the completion of this project.

But like virtually everyone else here, not having UCLA as #1, I think takes out the legitimacy of the rankings here.

Me: Louisville finished #7! Whoo Hoo!

You: Yeah, so what? UCLA finished 4th. How much value or credibility does the list REALLY hold?

Me: Damn. Good point.

Hawk

Hawk, Proctor, MA (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:58 PM)

When it comes to crunch time this is based on total wins. Big deal. Anyone can count. But that wasn't what was advertised and kept this going for months.

As for number of wins, there is no analysis of the quality of the opponent. And lots of East Coast bias. Of course, the winner of the first NCAA tourney was . . . [Google it -- you'll be shocked but they play UCLA all the time]

Had UCLA won 11 titles spread out over 79 years they'd be no. 1. It's true, too, that the Bruins are penalized for having the greatest coach in college history. Wooden, of course, is also discounted as the fourth or fifth best coach by Mr. East Coast Biased blogger of Beyond The Arc since he had such good talent and recruiting obviously just took care of itself.

As I wrote originally, a fraudulent pick. Who cares what Beyond the Arc thinks are 1-2-3? He has no credibility.

Malibu Scott (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:51 PM)

"THE GREATEST PROGRAMS: NO. 4, UCLA", man I've got to say that's a shocker. As a KU grad and huge KU fan I ask myself one question. Would I trade all of KU's records, 3 NCAA titles, 2 national championship titles (I don't recall what they called them in the 20's, not the NIT though) for UCLA's records and championships? And without hesitation I'd have to say yes. I can't speak to UK and UNC and their histories. But I can look at KU's. Yes, we have Phog Allen and Dr. Naismith, a bunch of Big XII, Big 8, Big 7, etc titles over the years. But I just can't get past all those UCLA titles. UCLA had some stinker years under Hazzard and Farmer; I recalling thinking it was funny at the time. When I went to KU in the early 80’s Ted Owens was putting out a few stinkers of his own. Last is the stinger that KU couldn't defend the '88 title because we were on probation (it pains me as a KU fan these things, but come on). I can say that Allen Field house is a great place to see a game and Pauley Pavilion is one of the worst places to see a game. But those things can’t compare to all those titles, even if they occurred in short period of time. I thought maybe UK could push UCLA a little at the one spot given the history and fewer titles versus UCLA and its 11 titles. Mike, I hate to say this but your Crimson and Blue blood is showing a little…

Martin, Mission Viejo, Ca (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 5:02 PM)

So UCLA is only good enough for a # 4 ranking? Hmm. Something is rotten in Denmark, all right.

To denigrate UCLA's remarkable achievements is beyond stupidity. So Coach K emerges as # 1 because he won 3 titles in over 20 years and returned respectability to men's Olympic basketball. In evaluating Duke's talent on a professional level, well I don't believe the great Coach K has been very successful. Not one Duke player has won an NBA title, (correct me if I am wrong) but Jabbar/Alcindor has a few as does Walton, two of the greatest centers of all time. More recently, Jordan Farmar played substantial minutes for the Lakers in their quest for a championship.

Please don't justify Duke's high stature because of the one and done rule. Duke hasn't won a title in a few years. And Florida after winning back to back has somewhat disappeared from the national scene.

But I guess its more important to appear in Elite 8/Final Fours than winning the championship.

Annie Burdeos, Los Angeles, California (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:30 PM)

Mike, back in April in your intro article to this series you listed the criteria used. It read like you set up a point system to achieve your rankings. If so, would you be willing to reveal your methodology and the points for each program? Thanks.

Mark, Kansas (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:34 PM)

I used 11 categories: wins, win percentage, NCAA titles, Final Fours, NCAA tournament win percentage, NCAA tournament appearances, regular-season conference titles, last time a school missed the NCAAs, recent dominant seasons (years with more than 25 wins), NBA players produced and NIT wins. (I'll post the point totals after I get to No. 1.)

That gives a lot of weight to NCAA tournament success (it's half of the method), but doesn't make anything more important than the other.

After I settled on categories, I ranked schools by how they fared in each category. According to their rank, they received one point. If you ranked lower in a specific category, you took a big hit. Team with the lowest total was No. 1 overall. It would've been easier to assign a numerical value to each category, but I thought this was suitable.

It is the best way to do this? Maybe not. But it certainly wasn't intended to favor one team, just teams that are successful overall and in March.

Mike Miller (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 7:25 PM)

Nice job, Mike. Your methodology takes into account, in a natural and fair manner, the entire history of a program, and moderates the achievements of a single terrific coaching job over a relatively short time.

It is irritating that a single coach can distort the history of a program, and distort the achievements of other programs that have been consistent for a long time period. Of course, Wooden, Rupp, Knight, and other great coaches, have left their mark, and it shows in these rankings.

UCLA, UK, KU, and UNC are all great programs and have been influenced by great coaches, but that is not the only criteria for success, and your methodology brings this out beautifully.

Vince DeCarlo, New Haven, CT (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:38 PM)

Whoever said that Kansas has no business in the greatest discussion definitely doesn't know the college basketball history. It's just not about stats, sometimes it's about the story.

- Ever heard of Naismith, the inventor of basketball, the Godfather of Basketball, ...yeah he coached at Kansas.
- Ever heard of Phog Allen, the Godfather of Coaching, ...yeah he coached at Kansas
- Ever heard of Dean Smith and Adolph Rupp, ...yeah those two giants, played for and learned from Phog Allen.
- Ever heard of Wilt Chamberlain, arguably one of the top 3 basketball player ever along with Jordan and Kareem....yeah he played in Kansas

Those names I mentioned are some of the most revered names in college basketball, and all of them related to Kansas

Andre W, Toronto, Canada (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:08 PM)

When you decide to create a "best list" using a number of numerical factors -- which themselves require judgment -- once you are finished you have to step back and see if the final result meets the reality test. (OK, call it the laugh test. On either basis, rating UCLA 4th flunks.)

The weight you have given to each factor may or may not be appropriate. Of course it's your judgment, but once you're done with the statistical matrix you've created you can't be seduced (blinded) by the result. Ask yourself if UCLA deserves to be 4th. While some will argue with you about who should be no. 1, I doubt anyone here thinks your final result -- making UCLA 4th -- is a rational result.

How far back did you go? To 1890? Did you include a "strength of schedule" factor or did you consider every win the same? 50 years ago, and earlier, there were a lot of "military" teams from various units, and AAU teams playing college teams. They were awful and college teams slaughtered them. This was less true on the west coast, more true in the midwest and on the Atlantic seaboard. Do you see a pattern emerging? (Remember who won the first NCAA tourney -- Oregon -- a team which played a number of AAU squads but also played real colleges.)

In any event, why don't you go back and look at what you've done and tweak it to meet whatever reality test you think it needs. We'll all forget about this embarassment.

I hope you're big enough to post this. I am, after all, trying to be helpful. I want to see a result that meets the reality test and takes into account such things as strength of schedule and college teams playing other college teams. I don't see it yet. Instead, I see a lot of dismissive stuff in your blog to try to rationalize a result which even you have to realize is irrational.

Back to the drawing board, I'd say, for the top 5.

Malibu Scott (Sent Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:19 PM)

UCLA not the #1 Basketball Program....Mike, your analysis is a joke....not only is UCLA the #1 basketball program, they are the #1 overall program period....the only school with 102 NCAA championships...no body wins more than UCLA..8 clap baby.....

Mike Santa Barbara CA (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:34 AM)

Scott, I appreciate the help. But I think you've rationalized this list's results to suit your needs. I'm guessing you'd only be pleased by having UCLA at No. 1, no matter the methodology, and on the basis of NCAA titles alone. If that's the case, it would be an easy to list to produce. You can find it here. http://www.ncaa.com/history/default.aspx?id=87926

Mike Miller (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:54 AM)

3 things to consider when downgrading the Bruin's storied past:

1) They beat TEN DIFFERENT teams to capture those titles under Wooden. Yeah, clearly there was no parity. lol!
2) Although the tourney was only 4 rounds long during Wooden's reign, each team was a Conf. Champion not a laughable at-large that we see today.
3) UCLA has appeared in the championship game at least once in the LAST 5 DECADES.

Evan, Torrance, CA (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:25 PM)

Consider this:
While UCLA has appeared in the championship game in the last five decades, North Carolina has appeared in the championship game at least once in the last seven decades. Kentucky has done so in five of the last seven. Same with Kansas.

Every team with at least three NCAA titles beat a different opponent in the title game, except for Indiana, which has beaten Kansas twice for the trophy.

I'm not downgrading the Bruins' past. Just adding some context and comparison.

Mike Miller (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:34 PM)

Maybe UCLA is #1 and maybe they aren't but any list that has the Bruins outside of the top 2 is per se invalid. Them's just the facts Mike.

Here's a little brain twister to help you understand why Mikey Boy. UCLA has 11 titles Kentucky is #2 with 7. Here's where it gets tricky so follow along now or you might miss the point. That means that the disparity between #1 and #2 is 4 titles! 4! 4 titles is more than ALL but 2 other schools have ever won! Indiana's 5 (3 of which came in late 30's and early 40's) and UNC's 4 are those two schools. Of those two, only UNC can even come close to maybe having a claim to historical superiority, but even that is pretty absurd. UCLA has 7 more titles than UNC which means that the disparity between the Bruins and Tarheels is equal to the TOTAL number of titles for the #2 team all time. UCLA is so far ahead of everyone else that at the current pace it would take #2 another 60 years to catch UCLA assuming the Bruins don't win another one. So it's not that National titles are the only metric that matters, it's that UCLA's total is so absurdly dominant that no other statistic is necessary to show who is #1.

Things like all time wins, conference titles, etc. should be tie breakers, especially because some programs (like UCLA) simply haven't been in existence as long as others. Tough to be the all time wins leader when other schools have a 35 year head start.

You're using minor data points to prove your major point and selectively ignoring the impact major datapoints (final fours and national titles) for UCLA because their timing doesn't conform to your arbitrary rubric.

Also, you're basically using arbitrary timelines to discount UCLA's titles. Would it have been better if UCLA had won 5 or 6 titles in 33 years (1963-1995)? I guarantee you that if that was the case, UCLA would be higher in your rankings. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? You're basically penalizing them for being so ridiculously dominant that their titles weren't spaced out enough.

Like I said, I can understand making a case that they're not #1, but #4? Come one.

Terrible. F.

Gabe, Oakland, CA (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:40 PM)

Mike Said -
"Consider this:
North Carolina has appeared in the championship game at least once in the last seven decades. Kentucky has done so in five of the last seven. Same with Kansas."

You say that as if that somehow distinguishes those schools from UCLA. If you bothered to look it up, UCLA has appeared in the championship game in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's. By my count that means at least once in each of the last 5 decades as well as 5 of that last 7.

Anything else?

Gabe, Oakland, CA (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:43 PM)

While UCLA probably deserves to be first based on achievement at the college level, and by any other metric as well, if they were second I'd swallow my pride (UCLA '67) and agree that your selection was rational. But making them fourth is absurd and irrational. I don't see anybody out there supporting your selection of UCLA as fourth best team.

So, I think you must enjoy being a contrarian. But you certainly aren't presenting something that anyone who has followed college basetball will agree with.

You are blindly sticking with an irrational functional analysis, hiding behind the final statistical result. You know what we call those people in Las Vegas?

Broke.

Malibu Scott (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:52 PM)

Sorry, Mike. You can slice and dice any way that you want to, but in the end you play for championships. ESPN decided just to count the last 25 years and you decide to to give points for categories. If UCLA is #4 in your system, you should have immediately known that you needed a new system.

The eleven banners hanging in Pauley might not resolve the issue for the diehard Kentucky, Indiana or N. Carolina fans but it should. Add to that a new coach with 3 straight FF's, great recruiting and a very bright future and the case is really closed.

Martin of Mission Viejo said it best. Would any of those teams trade their respective histories for our 11 titles and the unmatched greatness of John Wooden and the answer is an obvious "yes". And if any of those teams or any other non-west coast team had 11 titles, would anyone even question who is No. 1 and the answer is an equally obvious "no". Your system is silly.

Gregg, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:40 PM)

I immediately see at least two problems with your methodology (assuming I understand it correctly). The first problem (and this is a major one), is that it sounds like you are weighting each of your 11 categories equally. That's absurd. Being ranked first in NCAA titles is just as important as being first in NIT wins? What?!?

Secondly, by assigning points based solely on where a school is ranked within each category, your system does not take into account the magnitude of dominance within that category. For example, look at the difference between 1st and 3rd place in two different categories: championships and wins. In championships, UCLA (11) has more than twice as many as 3rd place Indiana (5). That's a HUGE difference. In wins, 1st place Kentucky (1966) has only 23 more wins than 3rd place Kansas (1943). That's less than a two percent difference! Yet your methodology gives both first place teams and both third place teams the same scores. That leads to very misleading results.

jd in Los Angeles (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:38 PM)

I am not going to argue whether UCLA should be 1 or 4 but your methodology is full of areas that are subjective to your own biases and would never pass muster to anyone who knows how a proper unbiased ranking should be done.

Ultimately you should just say that this is YOUR personal opinion on how you see it and not try to pass it off as a ranking based on a methodology of facts, numbers and calculations. That part is not well thought out and the weighting system is irrational and incomplete.

By (probably unconsciously) rigging your system you lose credibility as well as your readers.

Craig, Boston (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:02 PM)

Eliminate ten of the best years for any other program, and obviously no other program would compete. Drivel...

mb (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:53 PM)

Well many others here have been very eloquent in their responses. I don't really want to pour it on the author but frankly, for msnbc to be associated with this is disappointing.

The simplistic calculation to decide "the greatest basketball program of all time" sounds like something some high school kid came up with in his bedroom one night. There is absolutely no depth or intelligence to it at all.

bob in colorado (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:28 PM)

It's not amazing that everyone is automatically thinking that UCLA should be higher but they shouldn't. What many of you all don't realize is that UCLA won most of Woodens titles when only the conference champ made the NCAA tournament. I'm a Duke fan and I have to admit that #1 is UNC. I gurantee you if UCLA had to go through the ACC to reach the NCAA tournament back in the 60's they would not have all those banners. What Coach K has done is more difficult than what Wooden did.

Chris Miller. Columbia, SC (Sent Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:52 PM)

Mike, you are using the same techniques that critics use to "play-down" Tiger Woods' Major victories versus Jack Nicklaus' by diminishing the actual NCAA Championships versus just being "in-contention" or in the Final Four (or whatever).

You're equating being a National Champion is as good as coming in third or fourth... That is absolutely ridiculous!

Yeah, your logic is reasonable... if you're wearing rose-tinted Midwest sunglasses!

Richard L, Sacramento, CA (Sent Friday, September 19, 2008 2:53 AM)

Thanks for the input everyone. When I do this again in a few years, I'll probably tweak my method.

Keep reading!

Mike Miller (Sent Friday, September 19, 2008 11:11 AM)

Ifor one don't have a problem with the list. Its his list people!

mike LA. CA. (Sent Friday, September 19, 2008 1:39 PM)

" When I do this again in a few years, I'll probably tweak my method."

Why not now? If you don't "tweak" it now you won't have any readership in a few years.

Malibu Scott (Sent Friday, September 19, 2008 4:32 PM)

I think if you weigh championships first, you have to put UCLA and Kentucky in the top two. If you factor into the equation ,tradition, history, lineage and legacy; It's hard to ignore Kansas. Not to disrespect UCLA; however, they were a sub 500 program before coach Wooden took over. On the other hand, UNC,KU and Kentucky have been 1, 2 and three in all time wins in some order or another dating back to the 1920's. There's something to be said for longevity.

Patrick Everett Washington (Sent Friday, September 19, 2008 6:59 PM)

I do agree that national championships should be heavily weighted (over other metrics) considering they are the ultimate goal of college basketball programs. With that said, however, a reality that many pro-UCLA #1 posters here seem to be missing (or ignoring for the sake of their opinions) is that UCLA has had a single, isolated period of dominance.

Wooden is a phenomenal coach, without question, but there is NO WAY you can compare the NCAA tournament of the 60s and 70s to that off the late 80s-today in terms of difficulty and parity. Absolutely NO WAY. There are more teams and games are no longer played on home floors.

When I think of "the greatest program of all time" in a general sense, I think of consistency and UCLA - outside of its unbelievable span nearly forty years ago - has never even come close to replicating that kind of success -- and it certainly has not been as relevant as the likes of Kentucky, UNC, KU since that period. They fell off the map -- how is that a sign of a the 'best' program?

Howland seems to have the Bruins back on the right track but face it: UCLA's three-peat of recent Final Four appearances doesn't even compare to UNC's '05 title nor KU's this past season.

I don't know where - exactly - I would have UCLA (probably #3, KU #4); however, objectively speaking, UCLA doesn't have much to show for (relative the other teams in consideration) were you to take away their isolated span. Were UCLA to have these 11 titles spread out over five decades, there would be no debate. But credit has to be given to KU, UK, and UNC for remaining competitive pretty much every decade since the 1950s and UCLA's inability to do the same should be noted, as well.

It's hard to ignore that total but it's also hard to ignore the inconsistency.

Chris, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Monday, September 22, 2008 11:00 PM)

I totally disagree. UCLA is #1 without equals.

Also Indiana should be ahead of Duke.

Tim R (Sent Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:34 AM)

After reading your blog and the responses - it seems to me that there are many passionate Californians who read your blog. Congrats to California - however, I agree your methodology makes sense, and looking at teams holistically is fresh perspective over the die-hards list makers who think a team with one national championship (because that is apparently the only measuring stick) in over 30 years is the greatest team ever.

And please don’t get me wrong – I love Tiger Woods and teams that win – It makes for good headlines. And I know his goal has ever only been winning majors, but he is also made great/the best ever by how he has dominated everyone in his entire career along the way. Scoring average, win-percentage, rankings – and this is over a career – not a stint or streak – but career. UCLA can’t make that claim of overall dominance any more than UNC, Kentucky, or Kansas. (Who by the way is always in this conversation for anyone thinking otherwise)

I think as passionate fans we are often caught up in the end result, but if someone is truly going to commit to evaluating excellence in others, it is their responsibility to look at everything. It’s not their job to solely look at an end result of titles earned when man was landing on the moon and use that as an ultimate justification to any argument. UCLA has a fantastic program and legacy that no one would disagree with, but seriously folks, your rants and raves have done nothing more than make this blog more successful and probably raised the readership.

Good work and keep it up Mike, I look forward to arguing with my friends about who should really be number one, and of course reading the responses to you doing a better job at being Vice President than a columnist when people think you’ve screwed up number one.

Steve, Houston, TX (Sent Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:46 PM)

I have to go along with most of the posters.
Look, I don't know if UCLA should be No. 1 or No. 2.
I do know it should not be No. 4.
There are some things you can tell without a mountain of statistics: Muhamad Ali was one of the greatest heavyweight fighters of all time; Secretariat was one of the greatest racehorses of all time; UCLA was the greatest college basketball dynasty of all times and remains one of college basketball's greatest programs.
It isn't just the number of national titles or the consecutive win streaks they had. It's about how much better they were than everybody else at the time.
If it hadn't been for the rule prohibiting freshmen from playing at the time, UCLA would have won another national title with Lew Alcindor was a freshman.
They were so much better than everybody else, teams would hold the ball for the entire game trying to keep the score in the 20s.
When a team is THAT good, even that team couldn't posibly be expected to keep it up after the dynasty ended.
UCLA has continued to be a national power with some years better than others and also some down years, just like all of the other elite teams. But that total domination over college basketball -- unless you got to watch it, you can't begin to understand how good they were -- is enough to warrant the Bruins as one of the top two basketball programs of all time.

Fred Robledo, West Covina, California (Sent Wednesday, September 24, 2008 7:52 PM)

The Lakers have more total wins than the Celtics, does that make them a better franchise?

The total wins argument is stupid and most of these schools had at least a 20 year head start on UCLA.

Really, anything before 1950 is a little less meaningful. Since 1950 Ucla has been far and away the best program of the 60's and 70's, had a down decade in the 80's, won a title in 95, and have been one of the best programs of the 00's.

Kansas ahead of UCLA is laughable, before this year they had two titles!!!!

mike, fargo, North Dakota (Sent Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:19 AM)

You have got to be kidding. I am not a fan of UCLA but the stellar dominance of 10 championships in 11 years lead by John Wooden, a man of unquestioned character and inspiring leadership has got to rank more than #4. I am a UK graduate but they cannot hold a candle to what John Wooden and UCLA accomplished.

Paul Hamilton, Tualatin, Oregon (Sent Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:33 PM)

I'm a KU fan, and I thought they would be in the top 10 but not ahead of UCLA. But as I read the analysis, it does make sense. UCLA was the best team for a 15yr period, but what about all the decades and tradition before that. Look what Kansas has before and after that 15yr period. Take any coach you want away from Kansas, and you still have coaches who had tons of success--big win seasons, conference championships, and Final Fours. (Wilt Chamberlain didn't quite win the national championship--but he's the greatest NBA center of all time; check out his stats. And he came from Kansas.)

Steve Mahnken (Sent Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:45 PM)

First of all, I agree with Mike (for the most part) on his rankings.
Those of you complaining about the head start in the wins total should look at overall win percentage (UK - .762) (UCLA - .693), UK would win anyways, despite your dynasty's distortion.
And we're talking about all-time here, not existing for the opening period IS in fact a point against you if you want to be the greatest "all-time" program.
As for trading the history of the UK program for the UCLA one? Would I trade the memories at Rupp, the 96-98 dominance and SEC titles for 10 titles that happened decades before I was born? Not a chance. I wouldn't even trade the '98 title for it and anyone who would isn't a true fan. The assumption of the UCLA fans that we would "obviously" choose to trade away our team history for yours is a tribute to how distorted your view is on this subject. Mike's approach, while not perfect, was at the very least objective and his results were reasonable.

CJ (Sent Monday, March 23, 2009 10:29 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

More Beyond the Arc

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Earlier Beyond the Arc archives

Categories:

Syndicate This Site

Add Beyond the Arc to your news reader:

ABOUT THIS BLOG

The greatest programs: No. 4, UCLA

Posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:28 PM
Filed Under: Greatest hoops programs

EMAIL THIS

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

More Beyond the Arc

Syndicate This Site

More college basketball blogs

MSNBC Weblogs

ABOUT THIS BLOG

The greatest programs: No. 4, UCLA

Posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:28 PM Filed Under: Greatest hoops programs

EMAIL THIS

Comments

SEND A COMMENT

More Beyond the Arc

Syndicate This Site

More college basketball blogs

MSNBC Weblogs

Posted: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:28 PM
Filed Under: Greatest hoops programs