Interesting to say the least. The full list can be found here. Here is your top five:
1. Kentucky
2. UCLA
3. Kansas
4. North Carolina
5. Indiana
ESPN’s Pat Forde takes immediate issue with the rankings which are part of ESPN”s new College Basketball Encyclopedia. Forde argues that the rankings, which are strictly based on computer ratings tabulated based on wins/losses and scoring margin. The rankings do not account for the more subjective accomplishments such as conference titles, NCAA Tournament appearances and national titles. Forde points that Illinois is a spot ahead of Duke which is patently ridiculously when you consider what Duke has done from a conference and NCAA title perspective.
Forde’s biggest gripe and undoubtedly the same one most UNC fans will have is with the top five. Forde ranked them this way:
1. UCLA
2. North Carolina
3. Kentucky
4. Indiana
5. Kansas
Forde’s logic on putting UNC at #2 is as follows:
The Tar Heels are Kentucky without the scandals. They have achieved decades of excellence under a variety of coaches, having won titles under Frank McGuire, Dean Smith and Roy Williams. And they’re breathing down the Wildcats’ furry neck on the all-time victory list (1,988 for UK, 1,984 for UNC) despite playing in a historically tougher conference.
You could argue that the Heels should have won more titles than they have, given the all-time talent, but Williams seems intent on making up for Smith’s lost hardware.
I really do not have anything to add to that. Forde basically uses UNC’s strength of conference schedule and the fact they have won five titles with a generally clean program(Forde does not mention or forgot about the fallout after Frank McGuire left) as trumping Kentucky’s seven titles and four more wins. This undoubtedly will drive UK fans nuts but that is short trip and therefore will not require an overnight bag or hotel reservations. The tough part of this debate is the fact you are dealing with 70 years of history and most of us have a working grasp of only the past 20 or 30 years. It is difficult to judge success in early years of the NCAA Tournament era and as THF reader william once pointed out, desegregation is certainly a factor in the debate.
Since the THF community is easily the most astute and historically savvy Tar Heel fans on the internet I will put the question to you: How would rank them?
![[Bloglines]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.tarheelblog.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I don’t have a problem with Forde’s rankings. I’ll go with his to five.
The only problem I would have with Forde’s rankings and the Sagarin overall rankings, is that this is supposed to be an OVERALL and ALL-TIME ranking… Where was UCLA before John Wooden and throughout the whole decade of the 80′s with the exception of the one year Larry Brown coached them??
My top 5 for what its worth….
1. North Carolina
2. Kentucky
3. UCLA
4. Kansas
5. Indiana/Duke
Of course, my rankings are BIASED, because I’m Carolina fan, but I think the argument for Carolina can be made on this basis…
Carolina has National Championships in 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009. And a mythical/Helms National Championship in 1924. Carolina has the most Final Four appearances with 18 in 1946, 1957, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2009. Carolina has the most All-Time NCAA Tournament wins with 101. And Carolina is in second place to Kentucky in All-Time wins, only four wins behind by the way, despite the fact that Kentucky had a basketball program 10 years before Carolina started playing the game.
So, for those reasons, and the fact that Carolina played year in and year out in the toughest basketball conference in the country, the ACC, and the fact that until 1975 only the conference tournament champion was allowed to play in the NCAA Tournament, makes the case for Carolina even stronger…
These rankings are garbage. I’m so glad that Forde came out immediately with his list…so many people take ESPN to be the gospel of all things sports.
Having said that, it is VERY difficult to stratify the results for the best program of all time. There can be the UCLA #1, UNC #2 argument, but then Kentucky kinda creeps in as the blend of those two…UNC’s decades of dominance couple with the second-most national titles…yet, the scandals that have plagued that university must count for something. They won the bulk of their titles in the 1940s and 1950s, in a widely segregated game. UNC have won four of their official titles post 1980, and the one that they won in 1957 was one of the most, if not THE, epic college basketball games of the pre-UCLA era. UCLA had that stretch, but so many smoke and mirrors…Sam Gilbert’s tab. UNC and Kansas, along with Indiana until recently have stayed remarkeably clean…give or take one too many meals on Coach McGuire’s tab, or one too many fights between KU athletic teams. I’d go this way:
1. Kentucky (the numbers trump all the other issues, for me)
2. North Carolina
3. UCLA (the titles basically carry them here)
4. Kansas
5. Indiana
6. Dook
7. Louisville
8. Georgetown
9. Michigan State
10. Oklahoma State (formerly Oklahoma A & M)
There is such a big drop off after the first six…in some circles, Dook get the nod over both Indiana and Kansas. However, I’m looking at sustained success, and Indiana and Kansas were simply better than Dook over a longer period of time. Sure, one could argue that Dook have more all-time wins than Indiana, but hose wins came in pockets…Bubbas’s quasi-dynasty in the 60s and the Krzyzewski juggernaut of the field-of-64-era.
NC State and St. John’s are outside looking in. There’s just not enough there to warrant a top-ten placement. Also, if programs like UConn and Arizona would have been successful previous to the last 25 years, then they might earn a top-ten spot as well. I would also consider programs such as Cincinnati and Utah, which have good all-time records, and pockets of recent success.
Still, the top-six are pretty much the standard by which all other programs should be measured.
Regardless of how anyone here has listed UNC, note that every time they are in the top 5. Which is simply amazing. You can argue about lots of historical points, but no one is questioning how hard it is to recruit, win consistently and be clean. To do that and be honorable is a very tall order. One or two more national championships will make it clearer, but for now Player of the decade, Hall of fame players, how many 30 win seasons? No wonder home game Duke tickets are going for > $600 on the ticket sites now! Most of this is in the last 20 years, but I like our chances for the next few seasons.
Actually, I do value consistent excellence and put more weight on wins post the just-one-team-from-each-conf tourney era. So, UNC would be first. Then the others can fight it out but now I’d rank dook and gtown a little higher.
I can tell you one problem right off the top and that is failure to adjust upward for peak performance, which is something Bill James does in his abstract.
Maryland should be ranked ahead of USC, and there is no way that Iowa should be in the top ten.
The way they do it here, Pittsburgh would probably not be considered an “all-time” great NFL franchise because they were terrible from 1930-1970.
The main problem here is the title, which purports to be a neutral title, when in actuality, the phrase, “all-time” is subjective. This list also doesn’t account for the racist past. It would be much more interesting to see something considering only the last 55 years.
1. UCLA
2. UNC
3. Duke
4. Kansas
5. Kentucky
6. Indiana
7. Louisville
8. Michigan State
9. Ohio State
10. Notre Dame
Based on Forde’s logic, UNC should be ranked ahead of UCLA, too. Worst kept secret in sports is that those Wooden teams were all bought and paid for…
chuckheel85, You’ve won me over. The numbers do not lie. Start to finish we dominate.
To me, UNC, Kentucky, and UCLA are #1, #1A, and #1B. No other school is in the discussion for #1.
Obviously, UCLA’s championships jump out first and foremost, but 10 of them were during the 12-year run in the 60s and 70s. UCLA lay dormant on the championship scene prior to 1963, and from 1980-1995.
Kentucky’s claim to fame has been all-time win total, which is in danger of being eclipsed by Carolina. But four of UK’s seven titles came in a 10-year span in the late 1940s and 50s, and the Wildcats were also dormant for decade-long stretches.
Plus, both UCLA and Kentucky have only had one serious national challenger in their conference over the past 50 years (Arizona and Florida).
North Carolina seems to be the benchmark for long-term success. The oft-maligned 1924 team notwithstanding, from the advent of the NCAA tournament in 1939, only UNC has made the Final Four in every decade (save the 1930s). That’s seven decades of Final Fours. In addition, there have been three other teams from the ACC to win national titles in the post-UCLA era, cementing the strength of the ACC versus the Pac-10 or SEC.
FWIW, my list would be:
1. North Carolina (admitted bias, but extra points for 7 decades of excellence)
2. UCLA
3. Kentucky
4. Kansas
5. Indiana
6. Dook
but I have no issue with Forde.
I am from the University of Illinois and a big Illini fan. Even though I agree that Illinois should not be a top 6 program, I do believe that they are somewhere in the top 10-12, and I’ll tell you why. The only thing we’re missing is a National Title, although many consider us to have had the best team in 1943, 1989, and even 2005. We’ve been a little unlucky in terms of final fours, but besides that, we have been arguably one of the most consistent programs of all time. We’re 12th overall in win percentage and 13th overall in wins. We almost never had any down years and have been very good for very long, going back to the 1910s. I see that a lot of people put Michigan State ahead of us, but that’s bull. Michigan State was good at the end of the 1990s, and the 2000s, and they had two good years in the 70s, but that’s it. The rest of their history has been subpar. About 10 solid seasons is not enough to qualify them as being above Illinois, especially if you are looking at ALL TIME rankings. We have more wins, a higher winning percentage, and more conference championships than they do and we have been way, way more consistent. The same holds true when comparing Illinois to programs like Arkansas. As for comparing Illinois to schools like Temple and St. Johns, it is clear that those two programs are no longer national contenders the way Illinois still is. We have the second best recruiting class in the country coming in and I guarantee a national championship withing the next five years. Once we win that title, we are definately top ten, maybe even 6.
Best.
If you want to check out another good list, and one that I think is most accurate, look at NBCSports.com rankings of all-time teams from last year. Kentucky is number one and Illinois is 14. The person who put the list together, Mike Miller, gives reasons for each team’s ranking.
Forget about the Street and Smith (Sporting News) ranking from 2005. Illinois was 27, behing schools like Michigan (even though the Fab Five’s accomplishments have been erased by the NCAA), Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Princeton, and Penn. No way. Pat Forde also said he would rank Illinois around 26, but I’d like to see the teams he puts ahead of them. It seems to me that people like Forde have short-terms memories and think college basketball started in the 1980s. Sporting News does too, as they ranked both UConn and Arizona in the top ten ALL TIME. UCONN has been solid since the mid 1990s, same with Arizona, but they were nothing before the mid 90s.
I think Sagarin’s list is very objective, maybe to a fault, but that’s a good thing. I don’t think biases and subjective feeling should be put into something like this. I want a cold, heartless computer giving the rankings. I am sick of east coast and big name biases from ESPN, they were smart to go with a computer. Can you imagine if the biased Dick Vitale did the rankings? No thank you. You would have a bunch of east coast teams, Michigan State (he’s friends with Izzo) and Louisville in the top ten. Many ESPN reporters and analysts, like Forde (who wrote a book with Pitino) and Vitale (who is friends with Coach K, Valvano, and Izzo) are almost “associated” with certain programs.
Sagarin is good, and so is the NBCsports.com ranking, Forget about subjective rankings like Sporting News Magazine and ESPN’s best programs since 1984, which has Duke at number one, Xavier at 17, Memphis in the top 15, and Illinois at 23, strictly bull. The latter ranking pays absolutely no attention to strength of schedule, which is why Memphis and Xavier are so high, and pays too much attention to things like All-Americans and first round picks, many of whom end up being busts anway.
Carolina,for a many of years we have had to deal with the N.B.A sneaking through our back door taking away some of the best players in the country.Sargain ratings mentioned,Carolina should have more championships.Did they consider losing James Worthy,Michael Jordan,Rasheed Wallace.Jerry Stackhouse,Vince Carter,Ray Felton,Sean May,Rashaad MCcants,Marvin Williams,Joe Forte,Brendon Wright and who ever else just might have a lot to do with the amount of Championships.If Ty Lawson and Wayne Ellington were back this year,you could bet your bottom dollar we would be adding another one this season.Sargain should not hold the amount of Championships against us but instead rate us number one on class alone.Nothing could be finer.
This would be my ranking of all-time college basketball programs, considering things like ncaa violations and sanctions, as well as putting things in a historical contex
1) UNC (clean, great stars)
Syracuse (Consistent for a long time, 2003 title puts them in top ten)
2) Kentucky (too many violations, almost received death penalty, dominated a weak, all white SEC)
3) UCLA (Best teams money could buy, look up Sam Gilbert, dominant in 60s and 70s, just good since then)
4) Kansas (A little more consistent than Indiana, even though has less championships, birthplace of basketball)
5) Indiana (Clean until recently, great tradition, Indiana is still what you think of when you think about the great game of basketball)
6) Duke (Coak K, average up until 1970s, the best in the 1990s, top 3 in the 2000s)
7) Louisville (Two National Titles, always good)
9) Illinois (Model of Consistency, great since the 1910s, solid strength of schedule, 5 final fours but still need National Title)
10) Ohio State (Can’t remember the last time they were bad, a lot of final fours, back to back national championship appearances in early 1960s, a lot of revenue from football helps support a solid program)
Gotta go with the Sagarin rankings, though I would move UNC above Kansas. To say that the SEC has been a weaker conference long term would be incorrect. Since 1980, the ACC has won 9 of their 11 NCAA titles, with 4 teams posting championships. In that same time frame, the SEC has won 5 of their 10 championships, with 3 teams posting titles. Over the past 30 years, one could make a case for the conference strength going to the ACC, but not all-time. I’m a huge Kentucky fan, but able to listen to differing points of view objectively. Calipari and Williams are two of the top 5 coaches in the game today and will bring plenty of excitement to the UK-UNC rivalry. And being the 2nd school to 2,000 victories isn’t too shabby either.
So why don’t games before integration count? I don’t understand. Do we not recognize the accomplishments of Babe Ruth and Bobby Jones? What about Gretzky? Or Michael Phelps, if we’re honest? What’s the thinking here?
And here’s a problem: Integration took place over a period of decades. Does that mean we start counting UCLA games in 1939 (Jackie Robinson) but no ACC games until 1966 (Maryland and Billy Jones)? Is UNC’s 1957 National Championship discounted because it wasn’t really basketball? I’m serious. Someone explain.
I think the case for Kentucky is that it was a top 5 program in every decade, even the UCLA-dominated ’60s and ’70s, until this last decade, when it fell to #10. No other team has been so good for so long. That’s all Sagarin is saying.
But if you look at Sagarin’s decades rating, the nod since 1970 appears to go to UNC. And since 1990 to Duke. So pick whatever time frame makes you feel good. (He has UNC #1 in the ’80s, Kentucky #1 in the ’90s, and Duke #1 in the ’00s.)
As for the first to 2000, it’s symbolic, not meaningfully significant. UNC is breathing down Kentucky’s neck. And look out, Kansas is uncomfortably close to UNC. It’s a three-horse race, and I can’t wait to see what happens in the years to come!