AP Top 100 programs of all time

[PauliePeppas]

AP All-Time Top 100

 

[Briancuse]

9 is about right, I would put us ahead of Arizona.

 

[sabach]

Three Words - James Arthur Boeheim.

 

[br801]

9 is about right, I would put us ahead of Arizona.

SU shouldn't be top 10. Only one title. The program hasn't done enough. Just not ready.

 

[cusefan88]

My guess was 10 before clicking. List feels right. Zona and Cuse very close in terms of accomplishments.

 

[Jasoncuse]

While appearing in more than half of the polls to date, the Cardinals only reached No. 1 twice – on March 16, 2009, and Jan. 14, 2013. In fact, Louisville was ranked in 520 polls before landing a No. 1, the longest drought of any team that has appeared in the poll.


Louisville has only been ranked #1 twice? That's crazy.

 

[RF2044]

Feels about right to me. We're on the next tier, below the true blue blood programs.

I'd argue that UCLA is too high -- their glory era was 40 years ago -- and that Kansas is too low. I feel that Kansas squarely belongs on the top tier. UCLA belongs numerous rungs down the ladder IMO, even though they won so many championships. That's a sign that the evaluative criteria applied to everyone gets "gamed" by the one factor in which they excel.

Also surprised to see Cincinnati in the top 10. I get that they had a rich history, as well, but they certainly don't rate when it comes to looking at the top programs of the last 25 years+.

 

[SUGIANT]

Surprised Michigan isn't higher.

 

[Knicks411]

Feels about right to me. We're on the next tier, below the true blue blood programs.

I'd argue that UCLA is too high -- their glory era was 40 years ago -- and that Kansas is too low. I feel that Kansas squarely belongs on the top tier. UCLA belongs numerous rungs down the ladder IMO, even though they won so many championships. That's a sign that the evaluative criteria applied to everyone gets "gamed" by the one factor in which they excel.

Also surprised to see Cincinnati in the top 10. I get that they had a rich history, as well, but they certainly don't rate when it comes to looking at the top programs of the last 25 years+.

The weird thing is; reading the article, national titles have nothing to do with it. You get a point for appearing in each poll, and 2 for being #1. UCLA does benefit from ranking #1 more than anyone else, but there are no post tournament rankings included.

I would agree with you though; to me, Kansas has been a better program than UCLA. Maybe do something where you weight current years more, because the game is clearly more competitive now than it was in the 60's. Being an elite program year in and year out now is moe impressive to me than doing so in the 60's.

 

[721Comstock]

While appearing in more than half of the polls to date, the Cardinals only reached No. 1 twice – on March 16, 2009, and Jan. 14, 2013. In fact, Louisville was ranked in 520 polls before landing a No. 1, the longest drought of any team that has appeared in the poll.


Louisville has only been ranked #1 twice? That's crazy.

And MCW and crew knocked them from that perch the last time they were there.

Oh, and I just looked it up - the other time they were #1 was after winning the BET, against us, in '09.
They were then #1 in the final poll for that year, in the top spot for the first time in program history.

Syracuse giveth, Syracuse taketh away.

 

[Knicks411]

So as far as I can tell, being ranked #25 in any given poll is the same as being ranked #2.

 

[721Comstock]

So as far as I can tell, being ranked #25 in any given poll is the same as being ranked #2.

Yes, I think they were looking at "were you ranked this week"? and counted it as 1 point if yes.
You get the bonus point for being ranked #1.

 

[orangenirvana]

I would rank the top 15
8.UConn
9. Florida
10. Villanova
12. Syracuse

 

[Alsacs]

We have been more consistent. However those schools have more rings. If we get another ring we jump Florida and Nova.

Post 1985 NCs as well.

 

[Eric15]

Feels about right to me. We're on the next tier, below the true blue blood programs.

I'd argue that UCLA is too high -- their glory era was 40 years ago -- and that Kansas is too low. I feel that Kansas squarely belongs on the top tier. UCLA belongs numerous rungs down the ladder IMO, even though they won so many championships. That's a sign that the evaluative criteria applied to everyone gets "gamed" by the one factor in which they excel.

UCLA lost in the national title game in 1980, won a national title in 1995 and then went to three consecutive Final Fours in 2006, 2007 and 2008, with a bunch more Sweet 16s and Elite 8s intermingled throughout. Obviously nobody will ever replicate what they did in the mid 60s to mid 70s, but they have been consistently good/great forever. I personally don't see how they could be any lower than #4.

 

[br801]

Yes, I think they were looking at "were you ranked this week"? and counted it as 1 point if yes.
You get the bonus point for being ranked #1.

Yes, it's an interesting methodology.

 

[two3zone]

List is garbage. Like that we're 9 but I don't know what planet would have Cincy over Michigan or MSU.

 

[orangenirvana]

We have been more consistent. However those schools have more rings. If we get another ring we jump Florida and Nova.

Post 1985 NCs as well.

We're talking all-time greatness - which includes the regular season. National championships are wonderful but there's so much luck involved. I value consistency over six-game win streaks in terms of ranking the programs. Otherwise just rank them based on NCAA Tourney success.

 

[dasher]

I would rank the top 15
1. UCLA
2. North Carolina
3. Kentucky
4. Kansas
5. Duke
6. Indiana
7. Louisville
8.UConn
9. Florida
10. Villanova
11. Michigan State
12. Syracuse
13. Arizona
14. Georgetown
15. Ohio State

I put more emphasis on NCs, Final Fours. One NC and we become 9th. All the teams ahead of us have multiple NCs.

There is no justification fro ranking Nova ahead of us. Yes, they won two titles to our one. But they have been to only 4 final fours to our 6. We had a much better record than they did while we were both in the big East. It wasn't close. We have them head to head as well. If it is because of the two to one, then there are other teams that should be ahead of us as well. Florida has no business being ahead of us either. But at least that is a more difficult argument to compare. nova is easy. We were in the same league for 30 plus years and we were just better than them. Every number shows that.

 

[ar inj]

We can all have are own opinion, and I am sure we do, but this ranking by AP is not someone's or AP's 2017 opinion of how teams should be ranked. Rather it reflects the actual results over the past 68 years based on the 1,100 data points that were used (i.e., the 1,100 group opinions that have been tallied since January, 1949).

If you are only as good or bad as your actual record then SU's actual performance or more correctly the 1,100 data points of collective opinions of third-parties over 68 years says SU is #9.

Different criteria may lead to different results. If it is just total wins, Syracuse would be higher. If it is just NCAA championships lower. If all championships higher, maybe.

It would be interesting if the rankings would if they assigned the points as 25 or 30 for a first place vote and 24 for 2nd, 23 for 3rd, etc., but I am guessing not by much.

 

[Alsacs]

People can have their own opinions. If I say SU is 12th and you say 10th.

We disagree. I wouldn't care if you think otherwise. It's subjective. People want to jump on people they disagree.



Unless the person is a moron who trolls because they are a hater who cares if people think otherwise. I value one thing over another. Schedules aren't balanced etc.

 

[orangenirvana]

List is garbage. Like that we're 9 but I don't know what planet would have Cincy over Michigan or MSU.

The planet where Cincinnati has more all-time wins than both, more Final Four's than Michigan and more NC's than Michigan and as many as MSU.

 

[dasher]

People can have their own opinions. If I say SU is 12th and you say 10th.

We disagree. I wouldn't care if you think otherwise. It's subjective. People want to jump on people they disagree.



Unless the person is a moron who trolls because they are a hater who cares if people think otherwise. I value one thing over another. Schedules aren't balanced etc.

Do you think if someone disagrees with the point you make on a message board, they are jumping on you? I don't. It's just friendly disagreements.

 

[dasher]

The planet where Cincinnati has more all-time wins than both, more Final Four's than Michigan and more NC's than Michigan and as many as MSU.

Look, it you are going to nitpick

 

[RF2044]

UCLA lost in the national title game in 1980, won a national title in 1995 and then went to three consecutive Final Fours in 2006, 2007 and 2008, with a bunch more Sweet 16s and Elite 8s intermingled throughout. Obviously nobody will ever replicate what they did in the mid 60s to mid 70s, but they have been consistently good/great forever. I personally don't see how they could be any lower than #4.

Should they be higher than Kansas? Hell no.

Numerous teams have done what they've done since 1980. Many have accomplished far more. I'm not suggesting that those things don't matter, just that they don't serve as key differentiators they way that the titles do. And the number of titles primarily came from an era of basketball that was several generations / 40+ years ago.