| |
|
|
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:94
Level:All-Star
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:96
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
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
to me there 5 tiers
tier 1
1 ucla
2 uk
3 unc
4 iu
5 ku
tier 2
6 duke
7 louisville
8 cincinatti
9 gtown
10 Michigan state
tier 3
11 syracuse
12 uconn
13 san francisco
14 houston
15 NC state
tier 4
16 ohio state
17 st johns
19 oklahoma state
20 virgina
tier 5
21 Memphis
22 Marquette
23 illinois
24 lsu
25 florida
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
virginia*
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
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.
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
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.
So in your opinion no one in college football has ever won a national title, is that what I am understanding? Just want to make sure we are on the same page.
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 10, 2006
|
|
riverrock actually i just realized i forgot to put them on their i would them around 6 or 7 right behind louisville and cincy
|
|
|
Reputation:91
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 16, 2008
|
|
Where would UCLA be without Wooden? UNC without Smith? Indiana without Knight?
Ok lets try this one, where would Kansas be without Naismith, Allen, Harp, Owens, Brown, Williams and Self? Most could point to Allen in his changing of the game as being our BIG coach. But we did have the inventor of Basketball as our first head coach (oddly enough the only one with a losing record). Naismith did do a good job of teaching Allen, but he brought it to a new level, and btw teaching Dean Smith on his knee. Harp and Owens were great coaches who never brought home the Big Hardware, Then Travelling Larry Brown Brings us the 88 title. Williams, like Harp and Owens...great coach, no Big Trophy , and now Bill Self in his 5th yr bringing the Big Kahuna back to Phog Allen Fieldhouse. Tell me also how Duke with 3 titles outstrips Kansas with 3 NCAA Titles and 2 Helms Titles? Im not going to look up Final Four appearances, but I am gonna go out on a limb and say we got them there too. They have more recent appearances, but by attrition I think over the years we have them beat out.
Id go 1.UCLA 2.toss up between KY and KS 3.NC 4.Indiana 5.Duke 4 and 5 could switch as well, but I lean toward the Hoosiers due to the undefeated season.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 20, 2007
|
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 consistentUCLA u kidding me? they won all there championships like besides 1 in 1 decade screw there recent final fours and there recent success theres nothing like success then a championship and they haven't had 1 of those in quite a long time
UNC im not even going to bother to dish out and stats cause its already been explained why UK is a better program overall
one more stat since i want to be picky not sure on the exact dates u can look it up yourselves but UNC started playing basketball 2-3 years longer then UK did, UK still has more wins.
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 30, 2007
|
|
I believe national titles are won on the floor in basketball. I don't pay much attention to the national champion in football just for that very reason.
If football had a playoff to select the national champion the polls would mean very little after the tourney, just as they do now in BB. Do you ever hear anyone claiming AP championships in basketball? That is a great analogy for your "Helms" claims.
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 19, 2006
|
|
riverrock actually i just realized i forgot to put them on their i would them around 6 or 7 right behind louisville and cincy
Well with that being said...was Ark an oversight as well Defender?
|
|
