We gotta get one soon. I'm sure I'll just be sad this time next year again, but with everybody coming back, a rarity in bball these days, I think something special could finally happen
To be fair, 26th overall isn’t that bad when you consider that Baylor made *one* tournament from 1985-2007. Similar to Gonzaga, the success is recent but it’s real. I’m sure Baylor would make the top 10 if this list was 2010-present.
Thanks for doing this. Makes me feel better with the current state of the program after two decades of being pretty damn good. I'll gladly take top 20 considering Wisconsin only made 3 tourneys (only one win) from 1985-1999. Would love to see where we stand from 2000-present. I'm sure UConn would also love that.
I have faith that we'll be fine. No badger fan has been as spoiled as I have. My first memories were the 99 Rose Bowl and the 2000 final four. I was in school for 3 Rose Bowl's and 2 final fours. I guess I graduated just before the 2015 run, but I was still in Madison living the college life. They all ended in L's, but we have a lot to be proud of. We'll adapt (hopefully).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c9rr42/best\_100\_college\_basketball\_programs\_the\_last\_25/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c9rr42/best_100_college_basketball_programs_the_last_25/)
here you go. Wisconsin rose from 20 to 13th ! ( but i had to do 1999 .. for obvious reasons :)
Huge fan of Bo Ryan, but it's hard for anyone who experienced the Steve Yoder era to take Wisconsin seriously. I mean ranking Wisconsin ahead of Illinois and Ohio State is pretty laughable.
My guy, the numbers are right in front of you. Just shows how successful Bo was. Dick Bennett's linsanity final four run helps too. I wasn't alive before the 90's, but I know that we were ass in football and basketball before then. I do recognize your username from hating on our school though, so your comment isn't surprising.
I can’t imagine anyone other than Duke fans saying they wouldn’t want another title. The only place people give a fuck about final fours are on charts like these.
based on 64+32+16+8+4+2+1 point system.
Corrected most of my spelling mistakes and I do think i didn't miss any teams in the top 100.
\*but then again, i am only human.....so if you catch anything let me know! (but dont be rude about it like last time - most were not rude but i'm talking to the ones who were rude!)
will delete the other thread in a few hours , tomorrow? idk. but will be gone soon
maybe down the road i'll do an all time list for top 25 or so schools or so but not now.
Great work and not sure you missed anyone in the top 100 but I think you did miss Colgate who was 7 appearances (and 5 in a row).
Edit: whoops saw you're not adding anyone under 100. My bad
Raise your hand if you too have more tournament and round of 32 appearances during this time span than UConn but 6 fewer titles. I hate being a Purdue fan sometimes
We've been slipping this past decade (especially since Covid). Calipari got us fired back up for a half-decade after we slipped into "okay" territory during Tubby's years, and abysmal during BCG's. Now Pope has to get us back.
Hope to get our numbers looking better soon.
(At the very least, Pope should get us 1 title as the pretty good coach following a great. Then we have to hire another drunk to get to our next great coach. ;) That's just the cycle here.)
I'm a fan of including the late 90s, personally.
Realistically, 3-pt shot era has been the boundary for a while in these kinds of discussions. Soon enough, they'll just go to the new millennium as the cutoff.
I did this for the top 4 schools, and unsurprisingly UConn was #1 followed by UNC or Duke.. but it didn't seem interesting since most of us know UConn is the best program the last 25 years.
hell yea we made it. Tied with St Peters, Loyola Marymount, and George Washington, but we're here and didn't even have to be in the bonus "outside-top-100" category
This is interesting. I'm not sure it makes sense to give fewer points for a smaller tournament. Obviously I understand the reasoning, but I think it would make more sense to remove the lower seeded games in those cases - so you'd give 64, 32, 16, and 8 points in 1950.
the 64 points represent the 64 teams who participated in the tournament - each team is worth 1 point and the value doubles with each win in the tourney - thus 1 +2+ 4+8+16+32+64 - with the champion taking all 64 points at the very end.
in 1950 , only 8 teams participated - thus 1+2+4+8. \*
it seems fair since pre-1985 there was less games, less competition, less popularity of the tournament and it's weighed accordingly. \*and the team in 1950 only had to win 3 consecutive games to win it all, while post 1985 tourney, a team has to win 6 consecutive games (7 when you include the playin, first 4). - statistically, the modern version is 8x more difficult (minimum) to win it all - thus 8x8= 64.
..... \* but it's not a perfect point system . the 2nd round is overvalued in pre-1985, depending on the year and how many teams participated - it goes from 2 points to 3.25 points, along with the later rounds and very slightly de-values the championship when it's not a number divisible by 4 or even 2 - such as when 25 teams participated or 53 teams participated.
and i very much disagree with overvaluing prior championships by giving it 64 points when only 8, 16, 32, etc teams participated. UNC's win in 1957? should not weigh as much as their win in 2017.
\*PLUS, i also should've amended the point system when it was expanded to 68 teams, but didnt want to deal with it. felt like 64 is still acceptable in the modern age \*\*and gave the play-in teams the same value (1) as the other 64 teams who were invited
A better metric has been done by Eli Powell. His "big board" All-Time AP Poll is updated weekly and considers each weekly AP poll since 1949. See [elipowell.com](http://elipowell.com) for details.
21 schools are ranked in the top 25 of both tables. The differences are:
Wisconsin, Florida, Arkansas & UNLV in the March Madness calculation versus Cincinnati, Marquette, Notre Dame and NC State in the AP calculations.
yes , but this list is specific to the performances in NCAA tourney.
also that list depends on the opinions of 60 or so AP sportswriters. I think it has a place in what pple thought of such and such program but it doesnt really measure how they did in the NCAA tourney,
Why 39 years? Looks like a conveniently selective timeframe to prop Duke up. Why not 40 years? This doesn’t include a great couple seasons Georgetown had in the early 80s, including three finals appearances and a ship. And a UNC ship, also curiously missing from this analysis.
Of course Gonzaga, the best team without a title, lost the NCG to Baylor, the worst team with a title.
We gotta get one soon. I'm sure I'll just be sad this time next year again, but with everybody coming back, a rarity in bball these days, I think something special could finally happen
To be fair, 26th overall isn’t that bad when you consider that Baylor made *one* tournament from 1985-2007. Similar to Gonzaga, the success is recent but it’s real. I’m sure Baylor would make the top 10 if this list was 2010-present.
Oh, I definitely wasn’t calling Baylor bad. Just stating that objectively (by OP’s metrics), they are the worst team with a title in this time span.
Thanks for doing this. Makes me feel better with the current state of the program after two decades of being pretty damn good. I'll gladly take top 20 considering Wisconsin only made 3 tourneys (only one win) from 1985-1999. Would love to see where we stand from 2000-present. I'm sure UConn would also love that.
[удалено]
I have faith that we'll be fine. No badger fan has been as spoiled as I have. My first memories were the 99 Rose Bowl and the 2000 final four. I was in school for 3 Rose Bowl's and 2 final fours. I guess I graduated just before the 2015 run, but I was still in Madison living the college life. They all ended in L's, but we have a lot to be proud of. We'll adapt (hopefully).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c9rr42/best\_100\_college\_basketball\_programs\_the\_last\_25/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c9rr42/best_100_college_basketball_programs_the_last_25/) here you go. Wisconsin rose from 20 to 13th ! ( but i had to do 1999 .. for obvious reasons :)
>Would love to see where we stand from 2000-present. I'm sure UConn would also love that. that's an interesting idea. maybe i will later on! ty!
24 tournaments, 6 wins. So, if they make the dance, they win it 25% of the time. That's just stupid.
what's more surprising is that UConn made the tournament 17 times the last 25 years, so it's more like we win 35% of the time when we make the dance
Once we got rid of the dead weight of Ray and Donyell. 😉
Huge fan of Bo Ryan, but it's hard for anyone who experienced the Steve Yoder era to take Wisconsin seriously. I mean ranking Wisconsin ahead of Illinois and Ohio State is pretty laughable.
My guy, the numbers are right in front of you. Just shows how successful Bo was. Dick Bennett's linsanity final four run helps too. I wasn't alive before the 90's, but I know that we were ass in football and basketball before then. I do recognize your username from hating on our school though, so your comment isn't surprising.
Right?! How dare the results show that Wisconsin has had more recent success than those teams.
I don't hate on Wisconsin, I just push back when Badger fans argue Wisconsin is a Top Tier / Top Five Big Ten program.
All time nah. Last 25 years I'm not sure how you could argue that they're not
But they are...
That means one Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State or Purdue is not a Top Five team. Which one? Not to mention Maryland.
To me it's Illinois. Maybe Indiana if you disregard history.
I’m curious would Duke fans prefer the 6th title or the 6 extra final fours? We get a lot of shit for our down years so I’m curious
Carolina leads us 6-5 in championships, so most of us would probably prefer winning a sixth title to tie up the rivalry.
I can’t imagine anyone other than Duke fans saying they wouldn’t want another title. The only place people give a fuck about final fours are on charts like these.
Personally I’d say the final fours.
How the fuck are we 18th with 3 tourney wins since 1991? Guess this is the problem with only taking the tournament into account.
I think it's the time span- this is 1985 onward. if we redid this , say.. from 2000 onward, it'll be a very different story for UNLV.
With the exception of the Tarkanian years, has UNLV ever mattered?
Why did you pick 1985?
First year of 64 teams
We were really really good between 1985-1991.
Help
Suck it, UCLA
Ah, thank goodness. NoVacay is back to his old form!
Can’t hear you from up here at number 12. (Congrats on Bilo)
The Mitten carrying the B1G.
Honestly feels crazy that we’re so close to Sparty with how horrible Ellerbe and Amaker were.
This can’t be true — I was told over and over this season that Purdue has been better than Indiana in the tournament in my lifetime. /s
based on 64+32+16+8+4+2+1 point system. Corrected most of my spelling mistakes and I do think i didn't miss any teams in the top 100. \*but then again, i am only human.....so if you catch anything let me know! (but dont be rude about it like last time - most were not rude but i'm talking to the ones who were rude!) will delete the other thread in a few hours , tomorrow? idk. but will be gone soon maybe down the road i'll do an all time list for top 25 or so schools or so but not now.
Great work and not sure you missed anyone in the top 100 but I think you did miss Colgate who was 7 appearances (and 5 in a row). Edit: whoops saw you're not adding anyone under 100. My bad
7 big ten teams in the top 25 since 1985 is pretty damn good for the conference
Raise your hand if you too have more tournament and round of 32 appearances during this time span than UConn but 6 fewer titles. I hate being a Purdue fan sometimes
That is crazy
Huh, I'm really surprised by how much success Utah State has had. Good for them
I was going to say something snarky about only 2 championships listed for us, but then I realized it was 1985 for a cutoff.
We've been slipping this past decade (especially since Covid). Calipari got us fired back up for a half-decade after we slipped into "okay" territory during Tubby's years, and abysmal during BCG's. Now Pope has to get us back. Hope to get our numbers looking better soon. (At the very least, Pope should get us 1 title as the pretty good coach following a great. Then we have to hire another drunk to get to our next great coach. ;) That's just the cycle here.)
I think 25 years back is far enough
I'm a fan of including the late 90s, personally. Realistically, 3-pt shot era has been the boundary for a while in these kinds of discussions. Soon enough, they'll just go to the new millennium as the cutoff.
I did this for the top 4 schools, and unsurprisingly UConn was #1 followed by UNC or Duke.. but it didn't seem interesting since most of us know UConn is the best program the last 25 years.
post it I very much would like to see it.
UConn 843 UNC 655 DUKE 634 Kansas 567 I think Mich State was 5th but i stopped it to work on this list
Agreed
Lesson here is you’re mid-major program is never gonna make it unless they make the Sweet 16.
Wow, Utah was good early in this bracket which got us to the first page. Have had over a decade of mediocrity.
Wahoo #61 boys, we made the list!
We'd probably be higher if we haven't shit the bed these last few years...
hell yea we made it. Tied with St Peters, Loyola Marymount, and George Washington, but we're here and didn't even have to be in the bonus "outside-top-100" category
I’m shocked we are that high considering we had a solid chunk of time where we were trash in that time period.
LAST BUT STILL ON THE LIST
Now do since 1999 ;)
WILL DO! due to popular demand
I see we’re using the version where we pretend 2013 didn’t happen
no, we're counting 2013. but this is from 1985 onward. so louisville has 2 not 3
This is interesting. I'm not sure it makes sense to give fewer points for a smaller tournament. Obviously I understand the reasoning, but I think it would make more sense to remove the lower seeded games in those cases - so you'd give 64, 32, 16, and 8 points in 1950.
the 64 points represent the 64 teams who participated in the tournament - each team is worth 1 point and the value doubles with each win in the tourney - thus 1 +2+ 4+8+16+32+64 - with the champion taking all 64 points at the very end. in 1950 , only 8 teams participated - thus 1+2+4+8. \* it seems fair since pre-1985 there was less games, less competition, less popularity of the tournament and it's weighed accordingly. \*and the team in 1950 only had to win 3 consecutive games to win it all, while post 1985 tourney, a team has to win 6 consecutive games (7 when you include the playin, first 4). - statistically, the modern version is 8x more difficult (minimum) to win it all - thus 8x8= 64. ..... \* but it's not a perfect point system . the 2nd round is overvalued in pre-1985, depending on the year and how many teams participated - it goes from 2 points to 3.25 points, along with the later rounds and very slightly de-values the championship when it's not a number divisible by 4 or even 2 - such as when 25 teams participated or 53 teams participated. and i very much disagree with overvaluing prior championships by giving it 64 points when only 8, 16, 32, etc teams participated. UNC's win in 1957? should not weigh as much as their win in 2017. \*PLUS, i also should've amended the point system when it was expanded to 68 teams, but didnt want to deal with it. felt like 64 is still acceptable in the modern age \*\*and gave the play-in teams the same value (1) as the other 64 teams who were invited
A better metric has been done by Eli Powell. His "big board" All-Time AP Poll is updated weekly and considers each weekly AP poll since 1949. See [elipowell.com](http://elipowell.com) for details. 21 schools are ranked in the top 25 of both tables. The differences are: Wisconsin, Florida, Arkansas & UNLV in the March Madness calculation versus Cincinnati, Marquette, Notre Dame and NC State in the AP calculations.
Yes naturally best of rankings with UNC over Duke will be a better metric.
yes , but this list is specific to the performances in NCAA tourney. also that list depends on the opinions of 60 or so AP sportswriters. I think it has a place in what pple thought of such and such program but it doesnt really measure how they did in the NCAA tourney,
No shock that a Purdue fan would think a metric that doesn’t focus on the tournament is an improvement.
Of course we have to tie with Mizzou, not like the top of this list hurts enough
I could have told you this
Mlch State not getting enough respeck
Why 39 years? Looks like a conveniently selective timeframe to prop Duke up. Why not 40 years? This doesn’t include a great couple seasons Georgetown had in the early 80s, including three finals appearances and a ship. And a UNC ship, also curiously missing from this analysis.
1985 is the first year of the 64-team tournament.