Most productive colleges in NBA history

[SWFLCUSE]

I just stumbled across this and thought it was pretty interesting. The author went through and compiled the top 100 schools based on their NBA stats. Pho Three: The Top 100 Most Productive Colleges in NBA History (Points, Rebounds, Steals, Assists, and Blocks)

 

[Trueblue25]

Pitt sucks.

 

[SWFLCUSE]

For those of you that don't feel like counting, Syracuse is ranked 19th in points, 20th in rebounds, 20th in assists, 13th in blocks, and 26th in steals.

 

[two3zone]

For those of you that don't feel like counting, Syracuse is ranked 19th in points, 20th in rebounds, 20th in assists, 13th in blocks, and 26th in steals.

Better than I would have thought. Quite impressive.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Better than I would have thought. Quite impressive.

Wonder what the stats would be for the past 10 - 20 years.

 

[cuseattle]

Wonder what the stats would be for the past 10 - 20 years.

This has SWC type post written all over it.

 

[two3zone]

Wonder what the stats would be for the past 10 - 20 years.

Ehhhhhh, maybe not as good. Maybe in the past 20, past 10 thank goodness for Melo.

 

[Brooky03]

With the young crop of SU players in the league now and the 1st round draft pick streak looking like it will continue for at least another year or two, top 10-ish in each category is well within reach in the next decade or so.

 

[Trueblue25]

Yeah... yeah

But like,

Pitt really sucks.

That's all I took from this. Sucks to be them. , pity Pitt.

Edit: Oh wow effff Uconn is no longer visible here?

 

[donniesyracuse]

This demonstrates that the "never playing in the finals" stat is a silly anomaly.

 

[CusefanATL]

Better than I would have thought. Quite impressive.

is it? our we a top 20 college team? or better? if better (like i think) why dont stats correlate?

 

[CusefanATL]

This demonstrates that the "never playing in the finals" stat is a silly anomaly.

???

 

[Jasoncuse]

Behind St. John's and Georgetown? YUCK

 

[MSOrange]

Behind St. John's and Georgetown? YUCK

Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning and Iverson really carried Georgetown pretty high on the list. Now that they are retired, they will probably drop as other schools catch up.

 

[donniesyracuse]

???

There was something going around about 36 years having passed since a Syracuse player competed in the NBA finals.

 

[br801]

Not sure why anyone should get bent out of shape over this. Syracuse is a top 20 school in these categories, and would seem poised to move up the list, given the steady influx of solid players they are sending to the NBA these days.

In contrast, a school like Ohio State is very high on these lists on the strength of players like John Havlicek, Jerry Lucas and Neil Johnston (Hall of Famers who finished playing before 1980) and is unlikely to hold that position. The same can be said for other schools on that list, many of which were once college basketball powers but are no longer.

 

[Brooky03]

is it? our we a top 20 college team? or better? if better (like i think) why dont stats correlate?

If anything, this shows that Syracuse does more with less than a lot of schools. We're a top 10 all-time basketball program - where in the top 10 is debatable, but I've never seen a good argument putting us outside of 10 - yet we've only had NBA talent ranking us in the 15-20 range. Since we all know college coaches developing pros or ruining potential pros isn't a real thing that happens, the only conclusion is that Syracuse wins more games with less talent than practically anybody else. Not too shabby.

 

[donniesyracuse]

I wonder if ABA points are included.

 

[Eric15]

Not sure why anyone should get bent out of shape over this. Syracuse is a top 20 school in these categories, and would seem poised to move up the list, given the steady influx of solid players they are sending to the NBA these days.

In contrast, a school like Ohio State is very high on these lists on the strength of players like John Havlicek, Jerry Lucas and Neil Johnston (Hall of Famers who finished playing before 1980) and is unlikely to hold that position. The same can be said for other schools on that list, many of which were once college basketball powers but are no longer.

I personally would still consider Ohio State a modern-day college basketball power. They have had a lot of success over the past decade. I think people forget about them because their football team gets so much attention.

 

[br801]

I didn't mean to suggest they weren't a power, but was trying to understand why they were so very high up on those lists. Put it this way -- in terms of those lists, I would expect SU to start closing ground on OSU in the future. The schools that are no longer powers and/or producing great NBA talent are obvious.

 

[CusefanATL]

There was something going around about 36 years having passed since a Syracuse player competed in the NBA finals.

but how does this affect that?

 

[CusefanATL]

I personally would still consider Ohio State a modern-day college basketball power. They have had a lot of success over the past decade. I think people forget about them because their football team gets so much attention.

yeah evan turner, sullinger, russell, and conley are comparable to ours in NBA. they arent going to drop all that fast.

 

[CusefanATL]

If anything, this shows that Syracuse does more with less than a lot of schools. We're a top 10 all-time basketball program - where in the top 10 is debatable, but I've never seen a good argument putting us outside of 10 - yet we've only had NBA talent ranking us in the 15-20 range. Since we all know college coaches developing pros or ruining potential pros isn't a real thing that happens, the only conclusion is that Syracuse wins more games with less talent than practically anybody else. Not too shabby.

seems like you are bending the stats to be in your favor. But I kinda get your point.

But I'd much rather be really good with really good players.

The mid 90's to early 2000's is what destroyed Syracuse's NBA legacy (as compared to the SYracuse college legacy). John Wallace and pretty much nothing else. Give us a decent stretch in that 8-10 year period and our stats would look pretty solid.

As i said i kinda get your point - but you cant just disregard the stats being kinda bad (again in comparison) just because you want to.

 

[Brooky03]

seems like you are bending the stats to be in your favor. But I kinda get your point.

But I'd much rather be really good with really good players.

The mid 90's to early 2000's is what destroyed Syracuse's NBA legacy (as compared to the SYracuse college legacy). John Wallace and pretty much nothing else. Give us a decent stretch in that 8-10 year period and our stats would look pretty solid.

As i said i kinda get your point - but you cant just disregard the stats being kinda bad (again in comparison) just because you want to.

You'd be surprised about the things I can disregard haha. I didn't hate Cooney despite everybody telling me he's the worst player to ever shoot a basketball, or whatever they were saying with their stats and propeller hats.

I was twisting the stats a little bit, but it's not too much of a stretch. I, too, would like to have better NBA players along with the college success but we've recruited to fit a system for a while now and it seems to be getting the job done. After all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And, as others have said, a handful of schools ahead of us in NBA production did all of their work way way way back in the day. They're essentially stagnant now, so SU guys in the NBA will put the program ahead of them soon enough.

 

[Brooky03]

but how does this affect that?

The implication was that Syracuse didn't/doesn't have talent in the NBA. Ranking so highly in these statistical categories shows that Syracuse does have and has had a good amount of talent in the NBA.