AP Top 100 programs of all time

[Alsacs]

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.

I wasn't accusing you on jumping me. That is why I made my post without a being a response.

When something is subjective then I honestly don't care if someone disagreed with me. You were not trolling or being hater.

 

[dasher]

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.

should that matter? If we are talking about the best 100 basketball programs right now, I would agree with you. But any list that is the top 100 programs of all time, has to have UCLA at #1. maybe it's because I am old. But that dynasty, was amazing as coach K would say.

 

[HOFCeluck]

If you think that Villanovan is a better program than Syracuse because Keith Smart made a jump shot, then fine.

 

[Alsacs]

If you think that Villanovan is a better program than Syracuse because Keith Smart made a jump shot, then fine.

Yeah good point. That is how you destroy my opinion and I concede I am wrong.

Look people that is how you do it.

 

[RF2044]

should that matter? If we are talking about the best 100 basketball programs right now, I would agree with you. But any list that is the top 100 programs of all time, has to have UCLA at #1. maybe it's because I am old. But that dynasty, was amazing as coach K would say.

Considering that nearly all of their major program accomplishments did not occur in my lifetime, I don't think that they should be anywhere near #1.

I agree 100% that they are a dynasty the likes of which we've never seen before, and will never see again. I just think that the vast majority of those accomplishments are from 4+ decades ago. They haven't been nearly as good since then, despite pockets of recent success since Harrick,.

I'm not suggesting that their historical achievements aren't relevant--they clearly are. I believe however that them having such a lopsided # of titles / the equivalent rankings in the poll over a long term back then is skewing the results. But if the point of that article is only to calculate how many times you've been ranked and how high, then maybe you're right.

 

[cuseinseattle]

AP All-Time Top 100

Yukon the highest rated mid major. Hate to see it but probably true. I would flip UCLA and Kansas. I get the titles UCLA has and I understand it's an all-time list but UCLA hasn't been consistently elite in my lifetime really and I'm 37. I also think it's a coin flip between us and Zona. We are remarkable similar.

 

[cuseinseattle]

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+.

I had about a 1/2 hour conversation with one of my best friends about this very topic during weekend 1 of the tourney. He is not a Syracuse fan and lives in Seattle but watches a lot of basketball and is a state champion high school basketball coach. Anyway we were talking and in his mind it's UK, Duke, UNC and Kansas in the top 4 and then a drop off. He put Indiana, Syracuse, Arizona, UCLA in the 2nd group and said it was hard for him to put them in a order. Maybe UCLA first because of their titles but everyone else has had more long term success. I also brought up Michigan, Michigan State and Louisville and asked where he rates them. He said he thinks they are all well below the 2nd 4 with Louisville being the closest. I asked if he thought Syracuse was a better job than Michigan because I feel like people on here were talking about that recently. He laughed out loud and then said Michigan is a football 1st school with great facilities but it's not near as good a job. It's hard for me to gage these things because I will always lean Syracuse but thought I would post since it's from a knowledgeable person with no affiliation.

 

[tbonezone]

if you get points for being ranked in the top 25 then we are trending downward .

 

[OrangeDW]

if you get points for being ranked in the top 25 then we are trending downward .

Oh no! We're screwed! Fire the coach!

 

[OrangeDW]

9th best program of all time by this measure. ESPN had Syracuse as the 7th best coaching job in 2012, when they ran that feature. Let some tell it though, and basically every good program out there is a better job than Syracuse and the Dayton and Xavier coaches probably wouldn't leave to take the Syracuse job.

 

[sufandu]

There's a million different ways of coming up with one of these lists. I like that there is some sort of objectivity to this one instead of having some blogger with no sense of history just making something up. 9 feels about right. I've said for a while that I thought we were in that second tier, and I'm good with that.

 

[br801]

9th best program of all time by this measure. ESPN had Syracuse as the 7th best coaching job in 2012, when they ran that feature. Let some tell it though, and basically every good program out there is a better job than Syracuse and the Dayton and Xavier coaches probably wouldn't leave to take the Syracuse job.

Definitely a top 10 program in self-loathing, maybe top 5.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm surprised Dees St. didn't crack the top hundo.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Definitely a top 10 program in self-loathing, maybe top 5.

We have to be #1 in that dont we?

 

[PoppyHart]

Would it have been THAT hard to award 25 points for being ranked No. 1, 24 for No. 2, and so on? In years when it was only a top 20, just adjust the sliding scale accordingly. And if you truly think that being ranked #1 is worth a 100% bonus, just double it to 50, though that seems excessive.

 

[Lucid]

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

The poll uses "science." Are you a science-denier?

 

[SBU72]

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

Only since the 1989-90 season when the poll went to 25 schools. So a team that is a consistent #24 picks up 27 years of points where as that were top 10 for decades before then, pick up many more. As been pointed out, the game is more competitive now than 30 years ago, or 50 years ago.

Somebody mentioned objectivity. I forget, is this the coaches poll or a writers poll. Either way, it is not 1 man's opinion. Or a small group of men like say the tournament committee. There is some bias. Top teams (Kentucky, Duke, UNC) get the benefit of a doubt. While mid-majors or even bottom half of P5 conferences have to prove themselves. A Duke that goes through the 1st half of their OOC schedule undefeated gets top 10 consideration but a mid-major who goes undefeated for all of its OOC gets smirks when in get #24. Also supposed rough-tough conferences (ACC) get the benefit of a doubt because "they beat up on each other" while others who's top teams have several loses just prove that they are mediocre!

Oh I forgot, congrats to SU for being in the top 10. And to St. Bonnies for being #81. Not bad for a school of 2500 students.

 

[jordoo]

This is simply a list of the most consistent teams to compete at a high level.

 

[Knicks411]

Only since the 1989-90 season when the poll went to 25 schools. So a team that is a consistent #24 picks up 27 years of points where as that were top 10 for decades before then, pick up many more. As been pointed out, the game is more competitive now than 30 years ago, or 50 years ago.

Somebody mentioned objectivity. I forget, is this the coaches poll or a writers poll. Either way, it is not 1 man's opinion. Or a small group of men like say the tournament committee. There is some bias. Top teams (Kentucky, Duke, UNC) get the benefit of a doubt. While mid-majors or even bottom half of P5 conferences have to prove themselves. A Duke that goes through the 1st half of their OOC schedule undefeated gets top 10 consideration but a mid-major who goes undefeated for all of its OOC gets smirks when in get #24. Also supposed rough-tough conferences (ACC) get the benefit of a doubt because "they beat up on each other" while others who's top teams have several loses just prove that they are mediocre!

Oh I forgot, congrats to SU for being in the top 10. And to St. Bonnies for being #81. Not bad for a school of 2500 students.

This is the AP Poll, so it's the writers.

It's a method; it's good in the sense that there is a ton of data (going back tothe 50's or whatever). Obviously it's a blunt instrument, but it's probably pretty good for sorting. So, I don't think you can say #8 is definitely better than #12, but #10 is almost certainly better than #30.

 

[SBU72]

This is the AP Poll, so it's the writers.

It's a method; it's good in the sense that there is a ton of data (going back tothe 50's or whatever). Obviously it's a blunt instrument, but it's probably pretty good for sorting. So, I don't think you can say #8 is definitely better than #12, but #10 is almost certainly better than #30.

Oh, I agree. Obviously it could be broken down by decades, or "eras" like since they went to 25 teams. Or based on the NCAA tourny expansions. All sorts of ways. Somebody pointed out that you could do a weighted analysis where #1 gets 25 points on down. All sorts of ways to use the accumulated data.

 

[Knicks411]

Oh, I agree. Obviously it could be broken down by decades, or "eras" like since they went to 25 teams. Or based on the NCAA tourny expansions. All sorts of ways. Somebody pointed out that you could do a weighted analysis where #1 gets 25 points on down. All sorts of ways to use the accumulated data.

yeah, if I didn't suggest that, I was at least thinking that.

I assume all the AP poll data isn't publicly available? They should release it, let the internet do the work. You could get some cool stuff

 

[Day2]

If you think that Villanovan is a better program than Syracuse because Keith Smart made a jump shot, then fine.

No, not the "What if?" game!

 

[tbonezone]

The poll uses "science." Are you a science-denier?

View attachment 94013

except some programs like Duke and Notre Dame seem to be graded on a curve. they lose 2 straight and drop 1 spot.
i believe the phenomena is known in academic circles as the VITALIAN LADDER PARALLAX.