50 best basketball programs of the past 50 years

[JasonEvans]

ESPN has done this before and now they are doing it again. They are counting down the top 50 college basketball programs (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/62654/introducing-the-50-in-50-series)of the past 50 years.

When they did it in 2008, Duke was #1 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3501739). But that list was only comprised of 24 years worth of data. By expanding it to 50 years of data, I would imagine it would really help Kentucky, UNC, and especially UCLA -- perhaps enough to vault them past Duke into the top spot.

-Jason "we led UCLA by a huge 578-272 point margin in the last poll... will that be big enough to overcome UCLA's avalanche of National Titles from the 60s and 70s?" Evans

[MarkD83]

Since this poll will look back to 1962, UNC will not have the 1957 team (or the Helms championship :)) count towards their ranking. For Duke this does count the final fours through the 1960s which means all significant championships would be in play. Duke may not drop as much as we think.

UK probaly will move to #1 from their 2008 position based on the championship this year. However, that is offset by Duke's championship in 2010.

[JasonEvans]

Since this poll will look back to 1962, UNC will not have the 1957 team (or the Helms championship :)) count towards their ranking. For Duke this does count the final fours through the 1960s which means all significant championships would be in play. Duke may not drop as much as we think.

UK probaly will move to #1 from their 2008 position based on the championship this year. However, that is offset by Duke's championship in 2010.

Dude, UCLA is going to add 10 national titles to their total. 10!!!! They are also going to add a slew of conference championships, #1 rankings, and Final Fours in several years where they did not win the national title. I will be shocked if what Duke has done under K can offset the UCLA dominance in the 60s and 70s.

We are all playing for #2, in my opinion. Duke, Kentucky, and UNC will probably be pretty close for spots #2 - #4. Kansas should be #5 and then maybe Indiana. But I am just guessing at that point.

-Jason "you can thank Sam Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Gilbert_%28businessman%29) for UCLA's dominance!" Evans

[MarkD83]

Oops!!

I was only thinking about the relative ranknings of Duke, UK and UNC.

[SCMatt33]

I think this will actually be pretty close. If you only count points from final four losses, title game losses, and titles, Duke is only behind by 75 points, 370-295. Keeping in mind that the PAC-12 did not permanently implement a tournament until 2002 (with another 4 in the late 80's), and the fact that the vast majority of UCLA's dominance was before seeding, I think that Duke (along with UNC and UK) will end up pretty close to UCLA. My gut says that UCLA still comes out on top, but it won't be a runaway.

EDIT: I assume they won't count 1980 for UCLA because it was vacated.

[SCMatt33]

Sorry for the double post, but ot was too late to edit. A little more thought is clearing this up even more. UNC is at 300 for FF or better and UK is at only 205. Duke is behind the other 3 by 7-10 regular season conference titles each. My gut now thinks that UNC has a decent shot to be ahead of UCLA, with Duke third and UK fourth, but it will come down to all of the little categories.

[patentgeek]

Dude, UCLA is going to add 10 national titles to their total. 10!!!! They are also going to add a slew of conference championships, #1 rankings, and Final Fours in several years where they did not win the national title. I will be shocked if what Duke has done under K can offset the UCLA dominance in the 60s and 70s.

We are all playing for #2, in my opinion. Duke, Kentucky, and UNC will probably be pretty close for spots #2 - #4. Kansas should be #5 and then maybe Indiana. But I am just guessing at that point.

-Jason "you can thank Sam Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Gilbert_%28businessman%29) for UCLA's dominance!" Evans

I think you may be underestimating Indiana (maybe based on their lackluster recent play) - they did win three national titles during that period (76, 81, and 87) and make it to a few other FFs (at least 73, 92 and 02 - there may be others that I'm forgetting) - that's probably as good a body of work as Kansas has put together (two NCs and maybe 8-9 FFs). But I'm probably splitting hairs.

[johnb]

The ranking also includes a list of the top 5 players of the past 50 years along with 3 subs. Leaving aside your view as to the best 5 or 8 players, or who meant the most, or who you like the best, or who was the best among the 4 year players, anyone care to guess who they'll actually pick? I'll go with Laettner, Battier, Hill, Dawkins, Hurley with a side order of Redick, Ferry, and Brand, but I suppose that's not going out on a limb.

[luvdahops]

The ranking also includes a list of the top 5 players of the past 50 years along with 3 subs. Leaving aside your view as to the best 5 or 8 players, or who meant the most, or who you like the best, or who was the best among the 4 year players, anyone care to guess who they'll actually pick? I'll go with Laettner, Battier, Hill, Dawkins, Hurley with a side order of Redick, Ferry, and Brand, but I suppose that's not going out on a limb.

That's an excellent list. Only potential quibbles for me would be J-Will (over JJ, as more of combo/3rd guard) and maybe Art Heyman, who I think just skates in under the 50 year cutoff. Not sure who I'd have him replace, though.

[Olympic Fan]

The ranking also includes a list of the top 5 players of the past 50 years along with 3 subs. Leaving aside your view as to the best 5 or 8 players, or who meant the most, or who you like the best, or who was the best among the 4 year players, anyone care to guess who they'll actually pick? I'll go with Laettner, Battier, Hill, Dawkins, Hurley with a side order of Redick, Ferry, and Brand, but I suppose that's not going out on a limb.

Not a bad list, but there's got to be a place for somebody from the Bubas era ... Art Heyman, maybe? He was national player of the year in 1963, the first year of the survey.

[toooskies]

Regardless, the list is kind of a joke when Western Kentucky is rated 20 spots ahead of NC State. Apparently lots of low-major conference championships are worth more than national titles and respectable finishes in a storied basketball conference.

[TexHawk]

Dude, UCLA is going to add 10 national titles to their total. 10!!!! They are also going to add a slew of conference championships, #1 rankings, and Final Fours in several years where they did not win the national title. I will be shocked if what Duke has done under K can offset the UCLA dominance in the 60s and 70s.

We are all playing for #2, in my opinion. Duke, Kentucky, and UNC will probably be pretty close for spots #2 - #4. Kansas should be #5 and then maybe Indiana. But I am just guessing at that point.

-Jason "you can thank Sam Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Gilbert_%28businessman%29) for UCLA's dominance!" Evans

When they did this in '08, KU finished 2nd to you guys. (Originally they were #3, but they found an error in their calculations, which pushed them ahead of UNC for second).

Post '08, KU has 4 conference championships and one title game loss (which counts almost as much as a title game win in their weird scoring system). Duke, UNC, and Kentucky all have title game wins in that span.
Pre '84, you're bringing in the whole craptastic Ted Owens era. Ted does have two final fours on his resume, but his 182 losses are more than Roy + Self combined.


I would not be surprised at all if Indiana moved ahead in these rankings.

[SCMatt33]

I agree with the sentiment that this point system does diminish deep tournament runs and major conference titles relative to mid and low major conference titles. Penn and Princeton get credit for 8 points for each Ivy League title (they get credit for a tourney title for getting the auto bid since they don't have a tournament). That's almost as much as an Elite Eight appearance. 3 Ivy League titles is almost the same as an NCAA title. That doesn't seem right.

From here on out there are some minor spoilers. The rest contains a decent guess to how the top 5 will turn out. If you'd rather see it as it's released, skip the rest of this post.

I did rough calculations for the top teams for everything other than sanctions and player accomplishments. It turns out that while Duke was pretty close to UK, UNC, and UCLA while considering only Final Four's or better. When you add in Elite Eight's and conference titles, Duke starts to really lag behind the other three. Here are approximate numbers considering all categories beside player accomplishments (AA and Draft) and sanctions. 1) UCLA - 830, 2) UNC 793, 3) UK - 780, 4) Duke 673, 5) Kansas - 639. I'm fairly confident that those are the top 5 with UCLA being pretty hard to reach, though they did have a few sanctions and I feel that UNC will beat them in terms of AA teams and draft picks, but not enough to pass them. UK is definitely close enough to pass UNC, but I feel like their sanctions might keep them short. Kansas is kind of close to Duke, but again, I don't think its enough to be passed. For what it's worth, I also calculated Indiana, but they only got 413. That's probably in the top 10, but its lower than I expected. The bottom line is that consistent performance over time is rewarded in this system over a few years of greatness.

A few notes. I assumed that they will count records of vacated seasons based on WKU getting points for 1971.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Not a bad list, but there's got to be a place for somebody from the Bubas era ... Art Heyman, maybe? He was national player of the year in 1963, the first year of the survey.

Also, a pretty good player named J-Will might be worthy of inclusion..

[Bluedog]

As expected, Duke is #4 (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63214/50-in-50-rankings-no-4-duke), well ahead of #5 Kansas. The 70s really killed us. Funny how the "best teams" according to ESPN include only one national championship team:

Best teams (1962-present)
1985-86 (37-3, NCAA runner-up)
1991-92 (32-4, NCAA champions)
1998-99 (37-2, NCAA runner-up)

Their starting five is Hurley, Redick, Hill, Heyman, and Laettner.

[Duvall]

As expected, Duke is #4 (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63214/50-in-50-rankings-no-4-duke), well ahead of #5 Kansas. The 70s really killed us.

Duke scored more points in 2001 under this model (48) than it did in the entire 70s (34).

[SilkyJ]

As expected, Duke is #4 (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63214/50-in-50-rankings-no-4-duke), well ahead of #5 Kansas. The 70s really killed us. Funny how the "best teams" according to ESPN include only one national championship team:

Best teams (1962-present)
1985-86 (37-3, NCAA runner-up)
1991-92 (32-4, NCAA champions)
1998-99 (37-2, NCAA runner-up)

Their starting five is Hurley, Redick, Hill, Heyman, and Laettner.

Tough to leave the 2001 team off, which had 5 NBA starters on it in Duhon, Jwill, Dunleavy, Shane and Boozer.

We can quibble about the starting five, as we have done many times here over the years, but those are the right 8 guys (starting 5 + Jwill, Dawkins, Shane...in some order)

[Bluedog]

I demand a recount. UCLA just clocked in at #2. Clearly, the more recent future is weighed much more heavily if UNC was able to make up for all those championships. Seems like it was very close: "[UCLA] Lost 13 points due to sanctions and vacated wins (would've been No. 1 team in study if not for that)."

[SCMatt33]

I demand a recount. UCLA just clocked in at #2. Clearly, the more recent future is weighed much more heavily if UNC was able to make up for all those championships. Seems like it was very close: "[UCLA] Lost 13 points due to sanctions and vacated wins (would've been No. 1 team in study if not for that)."

It doesn't have anything to do with time weighting. This scoring system really weighted consistent performence over fleeting greatness. Teams really got punished for any extended periods of medicroty. A national title only got 10 more points than a final four loss, which is easily made up through good records, all-Americans, etc.

I do think ESPN did a good job at thinking outside the box a bit for the "best teams" part. You can certainly make a case for 2001, but I think that the 86 team rarely gets enough credit for how great they were I relation to Duke' title teams (plus '99).

[Bluedog]

It doesn't have anything to do with time weighting.

Right, I was mostly kidding. Still, Duke 1990s scored more points than UCLA 1960s with its 5 national championships (I realize that 60-61 were not included, so perhaps those two years made the difference).

[Atlanta Duke]

I demand a recount. UCLA just clocked in at #2. Clearly, the more recent future is weighed much more heavily if UNC was able to make up for all those championships. Seems like it was very close: "[UCLA] Lost 13 points due to sanctions and vacated wins (would've been No. 1 team in study if not for that)."

Consider the source:)

ESPN SportsCentury ranked Michael Jordan as the greatest athlete of the 20th century over Muhammad Ali and Babe Ruth

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/

[slower]

Consider the source:)

ESPN SportsCentury ranked Michael Jordan as the greatest athlete of the 20th century over Muhammad Ali and Babe Ruth

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/

Unfortunately, as much as I detest Jordan (and I DO), there IS a case to be made for his ranking.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Unfortunately, as much as I detest Jordan (and I DO), there IS a case to be made for his ranking.

Babe Ruth was CLEARLY the #1 athlete of the 20th century, not only because of his accomplishments on the field FAR exceeded any other baseball player during the ENTIRE CENTURY and any other contemporary athlete during his era, but also because he was the first "modern athlete" that became a true cultural icon(think "Baby Ruth").

To this day, Babe Ruth is the best baseball player to ever live and it isn't even close. Can we say the same about any other athlete in any other sport? (maybe Gretsky? but not the same cultural impact)

[Bob Green]

Babe Ruth was CLEARLY the #1 athlete of the 20th century, not only because of his accomplishments on the field FAR exceeded any other baseball player during the ENTIRE CENTURY and any other contemporary athlete during his era, but also because he was the first "modern athlete" that became a true cultural icon(think "Baby Ruth")

Sorry, this is an Urban Legend. The Baby Ruth candy bar is named after Ruth Cleveland:

http://www.snopes.com/business/names/babyruth.asp

[slower]

Babe Ruth was CLEARLY the #1 athlete of the 20th century, not only because of his accomplishments on the field FAR exceeded any other baseball player during the ENTIRE CENTURY and any other contemporary athlete during his era, but also because he was the first "modern athlete" that became a true cultural icon(think "Baby Ruth").

To this day, Babe Ruth is the best baseball player to ever live and it isn't even close. Can we say the same about any other athlete in any other sport? (maybe Gretsky? but not the same cultural impact)

Opinions - everybody has one.

If you don't think that Jordan's total athletic and cultural impact is in the same league as Babe Ruth (of course, there's no REAL way to measure it, is there?), it seems to me that you haven't been paying attention.

And Babe Ruth may indeed have been the best baseball player ever, relative to his contemporaries. But if you assume that, in any given sport, modern athletes are superior to earlier ones (for a variety of reasons), your assertion may or may not be true. You'll argue that his "two-way" career (hitting/pitching) was never equaled, and you may be right. But "the best baseball player to ever live and it's not even close" may not fly.

Again, we all have our own opinions.

[Indoor66]

Opinions - everybody has one.

If you don't think that Jordan's total athletic and cultural impact is in the same league as Babe Ruth (of course, there's no REAL way to measure it, is there?), it seems to me that you haven't been paying attention.

And Babe Ruth may indeed have been the best baseball player ever, relative to his contemporaries. But if you assume that, in any given sport, modern athletes are superior to earlier ones (for a variety of reasons), your assertion may or may not be true. You'll argue that his "two-way" career (hitting/pitching) was never equaled, and you may be right. But "the best baseball player to ever live and it's not even close" may not fly.

Again, we all have our own opinions.

No way for Jordan. Baseball is a MUCH bigger game than basketball. Ruth towers above any basketball player.

[Duvall]

No way for Jordan. Baseball is a MUCH bigger game than basketball. Ruth towers above any basketball player.

*Was* a much bigger game. That was before Jordan.

[BD80]

No way for Jordan. Baseball is a MUCH bigger game than basketball. Ruth towers above any basketball player.


*Was* a much bigger game. That was before Jordan.

Yeah. MJ pretty much killed baseball :(

[KenTankerous]

But Babe Ruth never had to submit to a drug test, which Barry Bonds did.

And never failed.

Science is science, y'all.

[gep]

Probably everyone noticed, but it's still interesting to me.... ranked 1st in each decade...

62-69: UCLA
70-79: UCLA
80-89: UNC
90-99: Duke
00-present: Duke

Gotta be doing *something" right... :cool:

[brevity]

*Was* a much bigger game. That was before Jordan.

More to the point, it was before ESPN. When Babe Ruth did something impressive on the field, I never saw the highlights on that night's SportsCenter. (And why didn't Ty Cobb ever sit down for a Sunday Conversation with Stephen A. Smith?)

But we digress. Here is the list:

01. North Carolina
02. UCLA
03. Kentucky
04. Duke
05. Kansas
06. Louisville
07. Indiana
08. Syracuse
09. Connecticut
10. Arizona
11. Michigan State
12. Georgetown
13. Michigan
14. UNLV
15. Ohio State
16. Villanova
17. Marquette
18. Temple
19. Memphis
20. Purdue (tie)
20. Utah (tie)
22. Princeton (tie)
22. Pennsylvania (tie)
24. Cincinnati
25. Arkansas
26. Texas
27. Maryland
28. Murray State
29. Notre Dame
30. Western Kentucky
31. Gonzaga (tie)
31. Oklahoma (tie)
33. Illinois
34. Xavier
35. Houston
36. BYU
37. Missouri
38. Kansas State
39. Weber State
40. Florida (tie)
40. St. John’s (tie)
40. St. Joseph’s (tie)
43. N.C. State
44. Davidson
45. DePaul
46. UTEP
47. Alabama
48. LSU
49. San Francisco
50. Boston College

For each school, they provide a starting five, three reserves, and coach to represent the past 50 years. Current coaches (still at that school) are Coach K, Bill Self (!), Jim Boeheim, Jim Calhoun, Tom Izzo, Rick Barnes (!), Mark Few, and Billy Donovan.

Trivia: there are a handful of players on this list who graduated or otherwise ended their eligibility in 2012, but only one (of 400 listed players) who is still playing in college. Who is this active legend?

[slower]

No way for Jordan. Baseball is a MUCH bigger game than basketball. Ruth towers above any basketball player.

I don't know anybody under the age of 25 who cares about baseball AT ALL. Once again, your opinion is your opinion.

And once again, if you don't think Jordan is as much of a cultural icon as Ruth, you just weren't paying attention.

[johnpope]

I don't know anybody under the age of 25 who cares about baseball AT ALL. Once again, your opinion is your opinion.

And once again, if you don't think Jordan is as much of a cultural icon as Ruth, you just weren't paying attention.

Nor are there many people outside the US who care about baseball or even heard of Ruth. The opposite is true of Jordan, who was a global superstar. In fact, if you're taking an international perspective, Jordan would likely be a "top 3" best athlete ever, while Ruth would be unlikely to make the top 50, I would guess.

[Indoor66]

Nor are there many people outside the US who care about baseball or even heard of Ruth. The opposite is true of Jordan, who was a global superstar. In fact, if you're taking an international perspective, Jordan would likely be a "top 3" best athlete ever, while Ruth would be unlikely to make the top 50, I would guess.

Attendance - 2010


Baseball = 75,503,057 (http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2010)

Basketball = 21,094,015 (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2010)

[slower]

Attendance - 2010


Baseball = 75,503,057 (http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2010)

Basketball = 21,094,015 (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2010)

So what?

Top athletes by salary/endorsements: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2011/index.html

Those baseball endorsements look pretty tiny, don't they? Follow the money - THAT tells the story. Aside from Jeter, A-Rod and Pujols, none of the baseball guys are moving any product.

And these are just American athletes, not global.

[tbyers11]

Attendance - 2010


Baseball = 75,503,057 (http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2010)

Basketball = 21,094,015 (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2010)

Baseball plays twice as many regular season games and their stadia seat about twice as much in average (44,000 vs 20,000 on a quick search).

[-jk]

Interesting argument.

Here's a site (http://www.statisticbrain.com/professional-sports-average-salary-revenue-salary-cap/) comparing revenue, avg salaries, and payroll for the major pro sports. Other than average salary (for the relatively smaller roster of hoops) baseball compares favorably.

-jk

[-jk]

And here's a fairly thorough market value analysis (http://economics.about.com/library/weekly/aa043004g.htm) of NFL, MLB, and the NBA by an Econ prof.

Still not a clear winner - between basketball and baseball, anyway.

- jk

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I don't know anybody under the age of 25 who cares about baseball AT ALL. Once again, your opinion is your opinion.

And once again, if you don't think Jordan is as much of a cultural icon as Ruth, you just weren't paying attention.

My point is Ruth was the greatest athlete of the 20th century for not only his athletic achievements, but also his lasting cultural impact. He made baseball america's pastime, vaulting it over boxing and horse racing and because of him, MLB remained the #1 sport in the US for nearly 50 years after his death. Because of him, the Yankees are THE YANKEES. Jordan has Bird/Magic, ESPN, and Nike among others to thank for his accomplishments.

Look at it this way, if the roles were reversed, and Jordan's career took place in the 1910's - 1930's and Ruth's career from the 1980's - 2000's, would your argument still hold water? Internationally speaking, if Ruth had played in the modern age he would have been recognized on the same level as Ali, Tiger, and Lebron. Conversely, what would Jordan's impact have been internationally in the 1st half of the 20th century?

In the end, I would rank Ruth #1, Ali #2, Gretsky #3, Jordan #4, Jim Thorpe #5.

[BD80]

, ... I would rank Ruth #1, Ali #2, Gretsky #3, Jordan #4, Jim Thorpe #5.

I'd have Secretariat #4

either way a horse's patootee in the 4 spot

[slower]

My point is Ruth was the greatest athlete of the 20th century for not only his athletic achievements, but also his lasting cultural impact. He made baseball america's pastime, vaulting it over boxing and horse racing and because of him, MLB remained the #1 sport in the US for nearly 50 years after his death. Because of him, the Yankees are THE YANKEES. Jordan has Bird/Magic, ESPN, and Nike among others to thank for his accomplishments.

Look at it this way, if the roles were reversed, and Jordan's career took place in the 1910's - 1930's and Ruth's career from the 1980's - 2000's, would your argument still hold water? Internationally speaking, if Ruth had played in the modern age he would have been recognized on the same level as Ali, Tiger, and Lebron. Conversely, what would Jordan's impact have been internationally in the 1st half of the 20th century?

In the end, I would rank Ruth #1, Ali #2, Gretsky #3, Jordan #4, Jim Thorpe #5.

It's apples and oranges, friend. Ruth might not have HAD a career from 1980s-2000s - not against modern athletes. Jordan would have dominated 1910s-1930s like nothing seen in the history of Planet Earth. But I know that's not what you're getting at.

Again, it's all an opinion. We can just agree to disagree, since I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.

And also once again, my ORIGINAL comment was a response to somebody suggesting that Ruth was far and away the greatest athlete of the 20th century, with Jordan not even coming close. And I just don't agree with that. Different times, folks.

And, again, let me state clearly that I detest Jordan.

[Wander]

Trivia: there are a handful of players on this list who graduated or otherwise ended their eligibility in 2012, but only one (of 400 listed players) who is still playing in college. Who is this active legend?

Cool question. Without looking, I'm guessing that Davis of Kentucky and Lillard of Weber State are some of the guys who graduated, and Canaan of Murray State is the guy who's still around.

[subzero02]

Canaan is correct... Hummel of Purdue is another guy on the list who graduated in 2012.

[Duke1988]

my question is, will unc hoist a banner at the smith center for this? my guess is, yes.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

my question is, will unc hoist a banner at the smith center for this? my guess is, yes.

They may have a couple of empty spaces in the rafters soon that will need filled anyway.:)

[BlueDevilBrowns]

It's apples and oranges, friend. Ruth might not have HAD a career from 1980s-2000s - not against modern athletes. Jordan would have dominated 1910s-1930s like nothing seen in the history of Planet Earth. But I know that's not what you're getting at.

Again, it's all an opinion. We can just agree to disagree, since I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.

And also once again, my ORIGINAL comment was a response to somebody suggesting that Ruth was far and away the greatest athlete of the 20th century, with Jordan not even coming close. And I just don't agree with that. Different times, folks.

And, again, let me state clearly that I detest Jordan.

Agreed and well said, I might add.

As a Blue Devil and Cleveland Cavalier fan since the days of Mark Price, I too detest "His Airness".

[moonpie23]

unc will hoist a banner when they take those others down...

[mkline09]

The designation of being ranked the top school in ESPN's 50 in 50 is worth about as much as a degree from unc in African American Studies.

[Dev11]

I don't know anybody under the age of 25 who cares about baseball AT ALL.

Hi, I'm 23 and have been to MLB games in 21 different parks. Baseball is my favorite sport, as it is for a handful of my friends.

Basketball and baseball are two very different cultural entities. I would say it's pretty difficult to compare the two.