The Holy Land of Hoops

New BE is well represented, You can see the whole list and read their methodology here: http://collegebbhistory.blogspot.com/2014/11/greatest-college-basketball-programs-of.html

BE:

#17 Georgetown
#24 Villanova
#32 Marquette
#33 St. John's
#36 Xavier
#46 Creighton
#55 Butler
#73 DePaul
#86 Providence
NR: Seton Hall

6 in the top 50 9/10 in the top 100.

AAC: 5 in the top 50 7 in the top 100
A10: 0 in the top 50 7 in the top 100
ACC: 7 in the top 50, 12 in the top 100
B10: 9 in the top 50, 9 in the top 100
B12: 6 in the top 50, 8 in the top 100
P12: 5 in the top 50, 11 in the top 100(washington St only team not in the top 100)
SEC: 4 in the top 50, 9 in the top 100

I don't like all time rankings (and not just because before 1955 marquette barely had a basketball team) really in my opinion college basketball didn't really pick up and start getting really competitive till Cinci won the back to back championships. That's why I loved that espn 50 in 50 for the best programs. Also when it's done that way the big east looks a heck of a lot better particularly GTown Nova and Marq

MUBoxer wrote:I don't like all time rankings (and not just because before 1955 marquette barely had a basketball team) really in my opinion college basketball didn't really pick up and start getting really competitive till Cinci won the back to back championships. That's why I loved that espn 50 in 50 for the best programs. Also when it's done that way the big east looks a heck of a lot better particularly GTown Nova and Marq

But thats not fair to those of us who have a deeper history and helped get college basketball up and running. Yes, it became more popular later on but it only became more popular because of the foundation that was laid by those older programs. If it wasn't for an older program like us you guys never would have gotten Al. He and his brother Frank came from SJU.



*Al is #12

NJRedman wrote:

MUBoxer wrote:I don't like all time rankings (and not just because before 1955 marquette barely had a basketball team) really in my opinion college basketball didn't really pick up and start getting really competitive till Cinci won the back to back championships. That's why I loved that espn 50 in 50 for the best programs. Also when it's done that way the big east looks a heck of a lot better particularly GTown Nova and Marq

But thats not fair to those of us who have a deeper history and helped get college basketball up and running. Yes, it became more popular later on but it only became more popular because of the foundation that was laid by those older programs. If it wasn't for an older program like us you guys never would have gotten Al. He and his brother Frank came from SJU.



*Al is #12

Oh I know and I get that and plenty of BBall geniuses came from playing in those days. Butttttt look at that picture a little closer it's in black and white and you can see everybody that's on the court... If not all of the best players were actually allowed to play it just kinda seems... I don't know less meaningful to me.

MUBoxer wrote:

NJRedman wrote:

MUBoxer wrote:I don't like all time rankings (and not just because before 1955 marquette barely had a basketball team) really in my opinion college basketball didn't really pick up and start getting really competitive till Cinci won the back to back championships. That's why I loved that espn 50 in 50 for the best programs. Also when it's done that way the big east looks a heck of a lot better particularly GTown Nova and Marq

But thats not fair to those of us who have a deeper history and helped get college basketball up and running. Yes, it became more popular later on but it only became more popular because of the foundation that was laid by those older programs. If it wasn't for an older program like us you guys never would have gotten Al. He and his brother Frank came from SJU.



*Al is #12

Oh I know and I get that and plenty of BBall geniuses came from playing in those days. Butttttt look at that picture a little closer it's in black and white and you can see everybody that's on the court... If not all of the best players were actually allowed to play it just kinda seems... I don't know less meaningful to me.

At least those guys had to actually do school work and get into the school. Now a days these guys aren't actual students. Also back then it wasn't a full segregation like MLB. Jackie Robinson played two years of BBall at UCLA before the war. The first black All American came in 1931, George Gregory out of Columbia. Blacks played college basketball prior to WWI at high level schools like Rutgers, Penn St and Nebraska. It obviously wasn't as fully integrated as we find now but it wasn't totally shut out either. SJU and many of the other Catholic schools were for catholics, and a lot of the blacks in that time were protestant. It doesn't matter now but that mattered back then. I myself am a proud Methodist but if I was around back then I probably wouldn't have went to SJU.

BTW here is another picture from when we played UK in that same era. Solly Walker who was our first black player and the first to play an integrated game in the state of kentucky.

MUBoxer wrote:Oh I know and I get that and plenty of BBall geniuses came from playing in those days. Butttttt look at that picture a little closer it's in black and white and you can see everybody that's on the court... If not all of the best players were actually allowed to play it just kinda seems... I don't know less meaningful to me.

By similar reasoning, Babe Ruth's entire career should have an asterisk because he never played against anybody from the Negro Leagues.

The major flaw in this rating is treating all NCAA tournaments equally, treating all NIT appearances equally, and not recognizing that for at least a couple of decades, NIT were on par with NCAA finalists and that in some cases the NIT champion was the true national champ or at least a co-champ with the NCAA champion.

Tho ther problem is in ignoring the differences between eras such that the top 2 teams in the country could meet relatively early in the tournament before the S-curve if they were in the same region. If they were in the same conference, #2 might not even make the tournament. So to use the tournaments to define "greatness" before. The open era is really a mistake.

They should just score NCAA tournament results and leave it at that. Including conference championships warps the results because not all conferences are equally competitive. See Penn at #21, on the strength of dominating a conference made up mostly of schools that didn't bother to put effort into basketball. Also don't believe NIT's should be counted, even in its heyday the NIT was corrupt as the day is long, and the teams invited were often the teams that best served the interests of the cabal of NYC teams that ran the thing rather than the best teams in the country. And of course nonsense like "mascot ferocity" doesn't even merit comment.

novahoops11 wrote:They should just score NCAA tournament results and leave it at that. Including conference championships warps the results because not all conferences are equally competitive. See Penn at #21, on the strength of dominating a conference made up mostly of schools that didn't bother to put effort into basketball. Also don't believe NIT's should be counted, even in its heyday the NIT was corrupt as the day is long, and the teams invited were often the teams that best served the interests of the cabal of NYC teams that ran the thing rather than the best teams in the country. And of course nonsense like "mascot ferocity" doesn't even merit comment.

This charge against the NIT in its hey day is nonsense. Check the rankings. They had their share of the best teams in the country. When the NCAA was limited to conference champions only, the NIT provided conference runners up the opportunity to show what they could do - at least those from the conferences that would let them go.

I have no idea what corruption you're alleging with regard to the NIT. It's a baseless charge. The NCAA had its own problems, often bringing in conference champions who weren't any good while excluding top independents against whom they were biased.

Without the NIT, there would have been no national championship competition as early as there was. If you doubt that, just look at football, which didn't have anything resembling national championship competition until the '90's and even to this day doesn't have true national championship competition.

Your allegation against Penn is also groundless. If the list is truly "all time", thenPenn belongs. They were recognized as the best team in the country 90 years ago when the Ivy League was in fact a power group and went to the Final four as recently as 1979. Even if they had done nothing in the past 30 years, that's a long string of success.

We have to find a formula that gets the 10 of us all in the top 50.


Yeah, Penn, in addition to '79, was legitimately ranked in the Top 5 in around 71 or 72... had the legendary Chuck Daly as coach.

Forgotten fact... in 79, i think on the same day, in the Round of 32 games, Penn and St John's beat UNC and Duke, with both games played in the state of North Carolina. See, even then, the ACC had the system rigged. Penn and the Johnnies met in the Elite-8 game that year. Penn had beaten Syracuse in the Sweet-16 game. I forgot who SJU had beaten... maybe Rutgers...? In another region, DePaul took down UCLA in a great Elite-8 matchup.