The greatest programs: A postmortem

Mark, Kansas — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:34:05 GMT

Overall your scoring system is simplistic but not a bad method. However, three of the categories used are very questionable when ranking programs all-time.

NIT wins are relevant prior to the 1980s but since are only an indication that the program was mediocre in the year accumulated. Wins prior to the 1980s should be judged on a sliding scale. For example, Kentucky’s 1946 NIT title is certainly relevant and probably on par with an NCAA title. Louisville’s 1956 title is probably on par with an NCAA Final Four. North Carolina’s 1971 title is probably on par with a NCAA Sweet 16. Also, some conferences used to prohibit their members from playing in post-season tournaments other than the NCAA. For example, the Big Eight and ACC did not allow participation in the NIT until the late 1960’s. All NIT wins can not be counted equally, and do not fairly conform to your ranking methodology. It’s no coincidence that the top programs faired poorly in the NIT category. Success in the NIT is not necessarily an indication of greatness.

If you are going to rank teams all-time, why give extra weight to recent performance? Why should a 25-win season in the last 15 years be considered but a 30-win season in 1940s or early 1990s be ignored? And why consider last NCAA tourney missed as a category? Arizona is number one in this category but nearly missed the 2008 tourney. If they had missed, how far down in your overall rankings would they have dropped (1 point vs 66 points) and does it seem fair that they may have dropped (or been as high as they are in the first place) based on a relatively obscure stat?

I think you should have just used the other eight categories as they have merit when talking about all-time great programs.

The greatest programs: A postmortem

Ry — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:15:04 GMT

How can my #1 ranked Pitt Panthers, who have been in the top 3 in the Big East for 10 years now not even be mentioned? The Panthers have been successful in the past as well.

The greatest programs: A postmortem

Darryn Clark, El Paso, Texas — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:46:18 GMT

How can you have California, BYU, Utah, Kansas State, Xavier, and Bradley in your top 50 but not UTEP? UTEP has a National Championship, and a much better resume than any of these other schools listed above. (Certainly better than Utah and BYU. We played in the same conference for years. How can you not include a team that was coached by Hall of Fame Coach Don Haskins? Rick Majerus had a few good years in Utah but he is no Don Haskins. Ask him, he will agree.

The greatest programs: A postmortem

TJ Morrill, The Hague, NL — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:38:22 GMT

How about Duquesne University who integrated college basketball back in 1955 with Sihugo Green?

The greatest programs: A postmortem

HL MCGee, Las Vegas,NV — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:57:38 GMT

Darryn from El Paso,
Utah has been a solid basketball program since the 40's. Even when Texas Western won NCAA in 66, Utah was there first game in final four. They lost by six minus their second leading scored who was injured. Jerry Chambers was the tournament MVP. Utah has a winning record against UTEP. They have only been domninated by 3 teams in College basketball, Kentucky (2-9), North Carolina (2-7), and Notre Dame (0-5). Jack Gardner was actually a better coach than Majerus, he took Utah to final four twice, and is in the basketball Hall of Fame. Utah has been to the final four, 4 times and won once. I do agree with you that UTEP should be up there close to Utah, but I think "Of all Time" Utah has the much better program. I love Haskins as a coach.

The greatest programs: A postmortem

Steve, Houston TX — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:17:32 GMT

In perusing your past blogs, I decided to re-read a few of your greatest teams posts, and I gotta say I’m impressed with the detailed analysis of each team. Besides, the comments alone on UNC and Kansas were enough to make some good reading and an enjoyable summer. I wonder if there will be a follow up modern era list, since IMO an all encompassing list never makes for a fair comparison. I mean nobody besides a critic snob actually thinks Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time compared to many of the films we seen in the modern era, so how can we actuarially compare the performances of Kentucky or UCLA from a generation ago to the Duke’s and UNC’s of the modern era? Are the 20’s Bears better than the 60’s Packers or Patriots in the first part of the decade - probably not if you put them on the same field with their era’s limitations. So, with that said - when the readers get to see a follow up of the best teams in the modern era. Just wondering.