| |
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 29, 2006
|
|
UK 7 titles, UNC 4. Yeah that's pretty darn close to equal
UK 49 tourney appearances: UNC 40
UK 17-6 in Final Four: UNC 12-13 (ouch)
UK 11 30-win seasons: UNC 8
UK .761 win %: UNC .736
UK 1966 wins: UNC 1950
The 1948 UK team also won the gold medal, not that it really matters...
so what, i'd rather have 3 more titles than 4 more Final Fours
Man, Rondo, you just keep dishin' it out. lol.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 30, 2007
|
|
Memphis should eb taken off immediately, no titles, a couple of final fours and no where near the top 50 in all time wins. Seriously, Memphis???
They have over 1340 wins even though they didn't start until 1921. I'm pretty sure that gets them close to the top 50. Most of the teams that are in front of them had a 15-20 year head start. They are in the top 30 in percentage. They don't have a title but have been to the championship game twice, FF 3 times, EE eight 6 times, SS 8 times, 21 tournament appearances and 28 tourney wins.
I think they match up pretty good with the tier 3 teams on the list. Other than the championship in 1941, when there were only 8 teams in the tourney, Memphis has better stats than Wisconsin.
If Memphis should be taken off, Wisconsin should be taken off even sooner.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 21, 2006
|
|
I know Kaara already mentioned it but there is a serious lack of Cincinnati on these lists. They belong in the top half of the second tier. They have every bit as much history as the others listed in the second tier.
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
They have over 1340 wins even though they didn't start until 1921. I'm pretty sure that gets them close to the top 50. Most of the teams that are in front of them had a 15-20 year head start. They are in the top 30 in percentage. They don't have a title but have been to the championship game twice, FF 3 times, EE eight 6 times, SS 8 times, 21 tournament appearances and 28 tourney wins.
I think they match up pretty good with the tier 3 teams on the list. Other than the championship in 1941, when there were only 8 teams in the tourney, Memphis has better stats than Wisconsin.
If Memphis should be taken off, Wisconsin should be taken off even sooner
Memphis' wins cdame against significantly weaker competition throughout their history. 3 Final Fours is not significantly more than two. ! title IS significantly more than NONE. Three Helm's titles IS significantly more than NONE. Memphis does nOT have better stats than Wisky when you actually consider the facts
|
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
This message has been removed by the administrator.
|
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
This message has been removed by the administrator.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 30, 2007
|
|
They have over 1340 wins even though they didn't start until 1921. I'm pretty sure that gets them close to the top 50. Most of the teams that are in front of them had a 15-20 year head start. They are in the top 30 in percentage. They don't have a title but have been to the championship game twice, FF 3 times, EE eight 6 times, SS 8 times, 21 tournament appearances and 28 tourney wins.
I think they match up pretty good with the tier 3 teams on the list. Other than the championship in 1941, when there were only 8 teams in the tourney, Memphis has better stats than Wisconsin.
If Memphis should be taken off, Wisconsin should be taken off even sooner
Memphis' wins cdame against significantly weaker competition throughout their history. 3 Final Fours is not significantly more than two. ! title IS significantly more than NONE. Three Helm's titles IS significantly more than NONE. Memphis does nOT have better stats than Wisky when you actually consider the facts
Helm's titles? That's nothing more than a poll that , with the exception of three years, agrees with the tourney winner. A poll, Columbia and Chicago have three each. A poll, someones opinion, just like the AP.
One title is significantly more then zero, yet 3 FF's is not significantly more than two? I don't quite understand the logic here. They are both one more than the other just as two championship games are more than one. Many teams have won one title, Holy Cross, CCNY, LaSalle, Loyola, but does that automatically put them ahead of every team that hasn't won a title? I don't think so.
21 tourney appearances are significantly more than 14. 28 tourney wins is significantly more than 18. You brought up the all time wins list. I was just pointing out the fact that Memphis was right there with Wisconsin even though Wisconsin had a 20 year head start accumalating wins.
Memphis does have better stats than Wisconsin. I'm not saying they are top 25 all-time but they are closer than Wisconsin.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 19, 2008
|
|
In what way is Kansas better than UNC?
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 19, 2008
|
I think recent games need to count more than games that happened 70 years ago. However I feel its
1-UCLA-their success has been fairly consistent
2-UNC- based on greater recent success
3-UK-Tremendous success in the 40s and 50s
4-Indiana-A lot of their success was in the 40 and 50s
5-Kansas-pretty consistent success
6-Duke-their success has been pretty recent
I feel these are the cream of the crop with no one else close!
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Mar 2, 2007
|
|
So Defender...I guess UNLV would be about tier 6 or 7?
Some of these schools have absolutely no business being ahead of UNLV.
|
|
