# Question for all the college experts



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

How would you guys rank the top 10-15 programs in the country, considering all factors (i.e. history/tradition, recruiting clout, fan following, on-court success past and present)?


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

Every list will be different. Every list will have some of favoritsm to it. Hey, I have Kansas in the top 3, but righfully so.

1-Kentucky
2-KU
3-UNC
4-UCLA
5-Indiana


That is basically my top 5. I will give rest of my list later.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

1. Kentucky (has most fans in all of college basketball, has biggest tradition of basketball historically and currently, on court success obviously, and we've had some great, great players)

2. Kansas

3. Indiana

4. UCLA

5. UNC


Basically everything kansasalumn said but in a different order.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky are on a level of their own.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hollis</b>!
> Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky are on a level of their own.


i just can not include Duke in this list not in top4 or 5.


----------



## Arsenal (Jul 18, 2002)

Here's my list, it is purely based on history/tradition:

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. UNC
4. Indiana
5. Duke
6. Kansas
7. Georgetown
8. Michigan St.
9. Louisville
10. Cincinatti
11. NC State
12. San Francisco
13. Ohio St.
14. Arizona
15. OKlahoma St.
16. Marquette
17. Michigan
18. Arkansas
19. UConn
20. Maryland
21. Notre Dame
22. Syracuse
23. DePaul
24. Utah
25. Oklahoma
26. Houston
27. Temple
28. LSU
29. Illinois
30t. Iowa
30t. Missouri


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Nice list, Arsenal. But no Florida?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

kansasalum basically nailed it, but here's mine:

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. UCLA
4. Indiana
5. Kansas

Much as I hate to say it, Duke is scratching and clawing to get into that list.

Arsenal had a good list. Not much to disagree with there.:yes:


----------



## Arsenal (Jul 18, 2002)

Florida has done very well over the last few years.

But they have only been to the Tournament 9 times. Most teams on my list have been there over 20 times.

By the end of Donovan's tenure, he should have them in the top 25 without a doubt.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arsenal</b>!
> Here's my list, it is purely based on history/tradition:
> 
> 1. UCLA
> ...


I owuld move DUKE down to 7-10 range. Cincy should be lower, as well as Arizona (before Olson, what Arizona had done), Missouri not a top 30.

plus Top 30 is pushign it. after 10, you can list anyone you want. Top 10 are the ones each team should try to look at, and build their tradition like that.


----------



## CoolHandLuke (Jun 8, 2002)

UCLA has to be number one... 

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. UNC
4. Kansas
5. Indiana
6. Louisville
7. Duke


I think those seven programs are the clear top seven. Duke, because of the last decade and a half, makes the list, though before that they weren't really there. Georgetown, OK St., San Francisco, Arizona, and NC St. I'd put fairly close, but not quite in that class. All seven of those teams just have a great history.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CoolHandLuke</b>!
> UCLA has to be number one...
> 
> 1. UCLA
> ...




There is absolutely no way Duke is lower than Louisville.

Duke has 3 national titles, Louisville 2.

Duke's been to 13 final fours, Louisville 7.

Duke has a .768 winning percentage in the NCAA tourney, Louisville has a .608 winning percentage in the tourney.

Coming into this season, Duke had 1680 wins, Louisville had 1406 wins.


And don't try to tell me that Duke was nothing before Coach K. They weren't dominate, but Duke was a good program. Before Coach K, Duke had been to 4 final fours and 2 national championship games (as many as Louisville's been to in its entire history).


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

It's basically Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, UCLA, Indiana, and then everyone else. For the top 3:

Kansas
Kentucky
UCLA

That's in no order. It's too hard to pick from those 3 teams. With UCLA they had the Wooden era, which is obviously the most dominant team in college sports hirstoy, or at least basketball. Kentucky, with all the die-hard fans, most wins in history, and most championships in history. And then Kansas, with it's rich history, the inventor of the game coaching there and is buried there, a small town-school that everywhere around it are die-hards. Kansas doesn't have nearly the championships that UCLA or Kentucky have though, but IMO it has more tradition. So basically, it's Kansas, UCLA, and Kentucky in whatever order for the top 3. Then it's Duke and Indiana for 4 and 5. After that you could make cases for a lot of schools. That's the way I see it, anyway.


----------



## spartanfan2003 (Jul 12, 2002)

1.UCLA
2.Kentucky
3.UNC
4.Kansas
5.Indiana
6.Duke
7.Michigan State
8.Georgetown
9.Louisville
10.NC State
11.Arizona
12.Ohio State
13.San Fransisco
14.Michigan
15.Connecticut


----------



## ***Finch*** (Feb 17, 2003)

1) UCLA
2) Kentucky
3) Duke
4) UNC
5) Kansas
6) Oklahoma


----------



## spartanfan2003 (Jul 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lebronjames23</b>!
> 
> 6) Oklahoma


You go there or something?


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lebronjames23</b>!
> 1) UCLA
> 2) Kentucky
> 3) Duke
> ...


OU????


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

Damnit, I forgot all about UNC. UNC right after the trio of Kansas, Kentucky, and UCLA for me, and right in front of Duke and Indiana.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Sorry, but Indiana is a top 3 for me... You can't go anywhere in Indiana without talking basketball, and I know that isn't true of other places like California because I've lived there, too.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Sorry, but Indiana is a top 3 for me... You can't go anywhere in Indiana without talking basketball, and I know that isn't true of other places like California because I've lived there, too.


But UCLA is a part of college basketball history. They got almost as many championships in 11 years than any other team has got in 100. I know the Hoosier state is big on basketball, but I don't think you could put them ahead of UCLA, Kansas, or Kentucky. Maybe ahead of UNC, but I don't think they're in the top 3.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Sorry, but Indiana is a top 3 for me... You can't go anywhere in Indiana without talking basketball, and I know that isn't true of other places like California because I've lived there, too.



Indiana is one of the best basketball states in the country, without a doubt. However, that doesn't really prove that Indiana University should be a top 3 basketball program of all time.

If we factor in fan support, that skews everything for the large public schools. Duke wouldn't even be in the top 30.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

wow how could no one put syracuse in the top 10? We broke the record for most fan at a game this year and people go crazy for syracuse out here so i would put syracuse in the top ten even thou we havent won a national championship..


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Four_Season_Hustler</b>!
> wow how could no one put syracuse in the top 10? We broke the record for most fan at a game this year and people go crazy for syracuse out here so i would put syracuse in the top ten even thou we havent won a national championship..


You're kidding right? There is NO WAY Syracuse is in the top ten.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartanfan2003</b>!
> 
> You go there or something?


He's a big 12 homer. much like a lot of the college fans here.

Anyway, there is no way I'd put OU in the top 10 all-time, but they're building a pretty respectable program for a football school(or a basketball school, for that matter). 3 straight conference tournament wins in the toughest conference, Final Four, and an Elite 8 the past 3 years.....could be a top 10 school before long.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

> But UCLA is a part of college basketball history. They got almost as many championships in 11 years than any other team has got in 100. I know the Hoosier state is big on basketball, but I don't think you could put them ahead of UCLA, Kansas, or Kentucky. Maybe ahead of UNC, but I don't think they're in the top 3.


 Hey just remember that Minnesota could be at or near the top of that list. 

John Wooden almost went to coach at the University of Minnesota. Minnesota hired him but they needed to check the clearance for one of Wooden's assistants, so they said they would call him back at 5:00. But there was a snow storm in Minnesota that day and the lines were dow. So it was 5:05 and the U of M did not call, so then UCLA called and Wooden assumed Minnesota did not want him so he took the UCLA job. And when the Gophers called a little later Wooden told them he already took the UCLA job. So just remember that history could be very different if that went through the way it should have....


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Four_Season_Hustler</b>!
> wow how could no one put syracuse in the top 10? We broke the record for most fan at a game this year and people go crazy for syracuse out here so i would put syracuse in the top ten even thou we havent won a national championship..


I think what most people are ranking this by is tradition and history. Now colleges like Kentucky and Kansas have a rich history of basketball and tradition. Both teams have always been good and both teams have a huge amount of fans. Now don't get me wrong, there are more colleges, but Kansas and Kentucky are the ones that just popped into my head.

I only rank Kentucky above UCLA because (I don't mean to sound biased here, so sorry if I do) UCLA only has the most national championships won out of every college from way back when. I don't see too much tradition, although winning 11 national championships is quite a feat. Also, UCLA hasnt ALWAYS been good (though they sure have had their years). Colleges like Kentucky and Kansas have always been good (except for the '89 season at Kentucky because Coach Sutton got in trouble I think).

Indiana also has tradition and probably (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) has the most fans next to Kentucky. Duke also has a good history (although I hate to admit that).


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> I think what most people are ranking this by is tradition and history. Now colleges like Kentucky and Kansas have a rich history of basketball and tradition. Both teams have always been good and both teams have a huge amount of fans. Now don't get me wrong, there are more colleges, but Kansas and Kentucky are the ones that just popped into my head.
> ...


Well, KU has loads of fans. But Indiana may have more, it's too hard to compare these things. Everyone around my area either loves KU, or is obsessed with KU. And there are a lot of people that like KU just because of it's history and the way they play. Also, UNC has been good for the past 3 or 4 decades up to this point. Didn't they go like 30+ years straight being in the top 3 in the ACC? They're right up there at the top. Another thing I think you could take into consideration is the NBA players each school produces. I think UNC leads this category. Kansas is right there. UCLA I can't think of too many players, especially recently, but they had a couple legends back in the day. Duke has had a couple successes, but most of the time Duke players tend to underachieve. Kentucky has produced quite a few quality players, although I can't really think of too many stars. Antoine Walker is probably the best pro from there recently (unless I forgot about someone). The list really depends on what factors you choose to have the most weight. But I think I'm gonna keep my list the way it is.

1a. Kansas
1b. Kentucky
1c. UCLA
4. UNC
5a. Indiana
5b. Duke


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Very interesting. Thanks to all those who replied.
Also, all of those who follow NCAA football, how would you rank the top 10-20 programs overall?


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> Very interesting. Thanks to all those who replied.
> Also, all of those who follow NCAA football, how would you rank the top 10-20 programs overall?


Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Ohio State, Miami, Florida State are all up there....I'm sure i'm forgetting somebody, but I had to make this list on the spur of the moment


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> Hey just remember that Minnesota could be at or near the top of that list.
> 
> John Wooden almost went to coach at the University of Minnesota. Minnesota hired him but they needed to check the clearance for one of Wooden's assistants, so they said they would call him back at 5:00. But there was a snow storm in Minnesota that day and the lines were dow. So it was 5:05 and the U of M did not call, so then UCLA called and Wooden assumed Minnesota did not want him so he took the UCLA job. And when the Gophers called a little later Wooden told them he already took the UCLA job. So just remember that history could be very different if that went through the way it should have....


Don't forget it's a lot easier to recruit to California then it is to Minnesota. Especially when you go after in-state talent (Bill Walton), or you want to appeal to guys who are from colder climates (Lou Alcindor). Something to think about too. Could Wooden have won if he hadn't recruited well? I mean, at a time when there was less money going around, probably less under the table stuff, environmental conditions played a large part in decision making when chosing a school.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

True Springsteen but remember Wooden did not recruit his players that hard. He did not recruit at all compared to the coaches now. Wooden just let the prospects decide, he wanted players that wanted to come there. And the system inself and the history Wooden created made the players go to UCLA. Sure the Gophers might not have won 11 titles, but they would have at least won 3-5...

Considering how all of the former players talk about coach Wooden, I don't think environmental conditions mean a thing. They might now but not back then.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> True Springsteen but remember Wooden did not recruit his players that hard. He did not recruit at all compared to the coaches now. Wooden just let the prospects decide, he wanted players that wanted to come there. And the system inself and the history Wooden created made the players go to UCLA. Sure the Gophers might not have won 11 titles, but they would have at least won 3-5...
> 
> Considering how all of the former players talk about coach Wooden, I don't think environmental conditions mean a thing. They might now but not back then.


Well, to rebutt your counterpoint.

Nobody recruited back in the day like the do now. So that's moot.

The system was good. But systems never won games by themselves. You still need that talent.

Plus, you can never predict championship totals. I mean, if Coach K coached at Oregon, would the Ducks have 3 titles?

Walton, who won 3 championships, would never have left the state to go to college. He was a young kid, with a stutter, and all kinds of other problems. He wouldn't have gone to Minnesota...but that's a minor point. Maybe they win without Bill. Just not as easily?

Either way, your story is some good trivia though. I'm certainly glad he went to UCLA.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Arsenal</b>!
> Here's my list, it is purely based on history/tradition:
> 
> 1. UCLA
> ...


Nice list. I am impressed that you remembered to list San Francisco and DePaul, both had great programs in the 70's and 80's. SF had some darn good teams with Bill Cartwright, Quentin Dailey, and Wallace Bryant. DePaul had a great run with Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings and Rod Strickland among others.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

This guy think Kansas is the best, and I have to agree with him. bring all good points. 

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/caple/030403.html



> Is there a school with a longer, prouder basketball heritage than Kansas? Sure, there are a handful that have as rich a tradition as Kansas, but richer?
> 
> 
> Kentucky? No. Remember, Adolph Rupp learned his game here at Kansas as a player and, when he still was years away from allowing blacks on the Kentucky roster, Wilt Chamberlain was leading Kansas to the Final Four. Indiana? Maybe, but the man who invented the game didn't coach there (Bobby Knight just acted liked he did). Duke? Please. No amount of those "clever" Dukie chants can begin to touch the haunting "Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk" chant. North Carolina? Perhaps, but then again, Dean Smith played here, too.


That is a perfect way to sum it up above.

Now how about this? This is very cool triva



> "Answer this: How many basketball arenas are named after Jayhawks?" Rob Farha asked. "Rupp Arena. The Dean Smith Dome. Allen Fieldhouse. What does that tell you about Kansas basketball?"


Very good article Love it!


----------



## spartanfan2003 (Jul 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkg1</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice list. I am impressed that you remembered to list San Francisco and DePaul, both had great programs in the 70's and 80's. SF had some darn good teams with Bill Cartwright, Quentin Dailey, and Wallace Bryant. DePaul had a great run with Mark Aguirre, Terry Cummings and Rod Strickland among others.


Don't forget Bill Russell. How could you forget SF and their great winning streak?


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hollis</b>!
> 
> 
> Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Ohio State, Miami, Florida State are all up there....I'm sure i'm forgetting somebody, but I had to make this list on the spur of the moment


Yeah like Michigan the winningest program of all time.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> This guy think Kansas is the best, and I have to agree with him. bring all good points.
> 
> http://espn.go.com/page2/s/caple/030403.html
> ...


Eek! The article is right. :uhoh: 

But it wasn't Rupp keeping blacks off the team, it was the SEC (remember, the SEC is the SOUTHeastern conference). I've said it before and I'll say it again, Rupp tried to get black players able to play in the 20s for the high school he coached (I believe it was the 20s...), and when he came to Kentucky, he argued with the SEC letting black people play, but they didn't agree until quite a few years later. True, they allowed it and he still didn't have any black players on his team, but its not because he was racist. He even had 3 black players play for him before his career was over.

But there are still a few things that Kentucky has that Kansas doesn't.

The most fans in all of college basketball, 7 national championships (though they will probably end up getting a total of 3 national championships after the season is finally over for them), and they don't seem to symbolize basketball like Kentucky does.

In that article, they said the only coach to ever have a losing record was Jim Naismith (the man who taught Rupp, and creator of basketball), well Kentucky NEVER had a losing season. The first season they ever played basketball, their record was 5-4. Since then, theres never been a losing season, ever.


But, as much as I hate to admit it...that article is right. I mean, all he had to say was "Rupp played at Kansas" or something of that sort.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ukfan4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> Eek! The article is right. :uhoh:
> ...


OF course the article is right.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> 
> You're kidding right? There is NO WAY Syracuse is in the top ten.


how am i kidding you? the fans here are probly the best fans anywhere beside duke..they have over 2300 win 7th team only to do that..so please tell me how they are not in the top 10?


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Four_Season_Hustler</b>!
> 
> 
> how am i kidding you? the fans here are probly the best fans anywhere beside duke..they have over 2300 win 7th team only to do that..so please tell me how they are not in the top 10?


I'd have to side with them not being in the top 10. They dont' have the number of national championships that other programs do. They don't have the legacy of professional players that other teams do. Also, they aren't as respected nationally as other top ten programs. 

Don't get me wrong, it's a good program. I didn't know they had that many wins. But really, even having the best fans...wouldn't make them a top 10 program.

To me at least, it's all about historical accomplishments, and Syracuse, while a very good program, doesn't have the history of any other teams considered top 10.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> 
> 
> OF course the article is right.


Now that I think about it, I'm thinking differently.

So what if Rupp played for Kansas? So what if his mentor was Naismith? Tradition is tradition and I think Kentucky has tons more of it. Kansas doesn't have as nearly many Final Fours as Kentucky, they don't have as many championships, and they aren't the winningest program in all of college basketball. They don't have as many fans and they don't symbolize basketball.

Rupp Arena isn't named after the Kansas-player-Rupp, its named for the Great-coach-who-revolutionized-basketball-and-coached-Kentucky-Rupp.

Not to say Kansas doesn't have tradition, believe me, they have tons of it. They've been good almost every single year of their program, but so has Kentucky. 

I would also like to quote the article here:


> Adolph Rupp learned his game here at Kansas as a player and, when he still was years away from allowing blacks on the Kentucky roster, Wilt Chamberlain was leading Kansas to the Final Four.


I'd like to point out that even when Wilt was there, Kentucky was still going to more Final Fours. And they're trying to compare the fact that Kansas had black players on their team and Kentucky didn't. If its the year I'm thinking of, then Wilt was their only black player, so its almost foolish to even try and compare Kansas and Kentucky in that sense.

But when it comes down to tradition and history, Kentucky has Kansas beat in just about every category:

NCAA Championships-
Kansas: 2
Kentucky: 7

Who has the more fans?
Kentucky

Whos the winningest program in all of college basketball?
Kentcuky

Whose been to more Final Fours?
Kentucky

Who has had a winning season every single season since the start of their program?
Kentucky

Who symbolizes basketball?
Kentucky


I will give it to Kansas that Rupp did learn his game there, but he never really adapted his new add-ons to basketball (he invented the full court press and the pick and roll) until he came to Kentucky.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

hey that is your opinon, and I admire your opinon. We both have two of the best programs ever in college basketball. Hey in Kansas, KU baskeball is all there is. KSU Football is getting there, but in the state of Kansas. It is all about Kansas Jayhawks Basketball. To symobize basketball, that is too hard. Hey college basketball is life. How can you claim to have more fans??? I can not see that. Where is your backup? Kansas has fans everywhere. New York fans actually found where Wayne Simien was at last weekend, and got him a gift and watch the game from his hospital room. Yes Kentucky has a lot of fans. I am not distrubiting that, but to claim they have the most fans? Both states worship their basketball teams. Winningist program? ok I give you that, but both schools have wining recorrds, I bleive KU is 3 or 4 in all time victories. Finals Fours, sure, but it was not called finals fours until I bleive was the 1970's. but that is nitpicking. Actually KU won 4 national championships 1921 and 1922. It was called the Helms Championship before the NCAA championships. By the Way, Phog Allen was one of the few who started that NCAA Championships. More Kansas there. 

Ok lets this stop it here. We both think our programs deserve to be the top 3 basketball programs of all time, and we know we are right on that aspect. 

By the way if you look at my first post here, I put Kentucky number one and Kansas number 2. So I am DO NOT THINK Kentucky is behind Kansas. I just post the article about Kansas, and I think it is almost pretty dead on. If you think about, if it was not for Kansas then we won't have Phog Allen, then no RUpp and Dean SMith, then no Dean's disclaples(sp). Then UK and UNC may not have their history and tradition as well. 

ok lets stop.


----------



## maraboustork42 (Oct 8, 2002)

*you can't help but overrate ku*

it is in your name. i don't think this one is even close. ucla is clearly tops. best coach ever. most ncaa titles. most consecutive titles. i hate ucla, but they are head and shoulders above uk and ku. they dominated everyone.

second uk. and i really hate uk. but they back it up. titles, tradition, and probably the best mix of dominating multiple eras. they were great back in the day and badass in the 90's. and they clearly have more fans than kansas. kentucky according to 2001 US census estimate has 4,065,556 citizens to kansas's 2,694,641. i think it is a good bet that with an extra 1.4 million state citizens as well a far superior all time record to attract bandwagon fans across the country that uk has more fans than ku.

i think you all underrate duke. i'll give you a huge kansas edge over just about anyone in old, old, old tradtion. but what about recent tradition. coach k has best tournament win % ever, and more titles than either dean or kansas. do these accomplishments not count because they materialized in the last 15 years? with increased parity, early nba entry, and a longer tournament these accomplishments should be magnified.

and kansas and unc are also in the top 5 for me. however, i think that "dean smith is a nice guy" and "michael jordan played for unc" factor too heavily in most or your assessments. they only won 2 titles with dean (the other was in 1957). they were a powerhouse in the 80's but no more so than indiana or georgetown. i think duke/kentucky dominated 90's more than any of these dominated the 80's.

the larry brown kansas title team was not a powerhouse. they got hot/lucky at the right time. and then they got some ncaa violations: 

"Brown, a former North Carolina player and assistant under Dean Smith, is one of the most successful NBA coaches of all time but incurred major NCAA infractions at UCLA and Kansas, the only schools to employ him as head coach. According to the official NCAA database, UCLA in 1981 and Kansas in 1988 were found guilty of major infractions committed while Brown was coach. Brown, in his sixth season with the Philadelphia 76ers, was at UCLA in 1979-81 and Kansas in '84-88, going 177-50 with a national title at Kansas and a national runner-up finish at UCLA. That second-place finish, in 1980, was expunged from the official NCAA record book because of violations including academic fraud, improper recruiting inducements and excessive allocation of financial aid. At Kansas, Brown's program was found to have provided $1,244 in improper inducements to a recruit. That included $366 in cash -- from Brown -- for the player to buy a plane ticket to visit his sick grandmother. Kansas and UCLA were placed on probation and were banned from postseason play for one year after Brown left.

something stinks (or stunk) in lawrence. ucla doesn't have to count its tainted 2nd place b/c they have plenty of legitimate championships to fall back on. you put a ? mark around kansas/larry brown/1988 and ku is lucky to stick in the top 5.

also if roy williams jocks ku for unc that may push unc past kansas for me. who cares if it is his alma mater. this is a power play we wouldn't be having this discussion if williams went to mt. st. mary's. he would basically be saying that unc is a better job/program.

1. ucla
2. kentucky
3. duke 
4. kansas (if they win it all this year, they tie/pass duke)
5. unc
6. indiana could be higher

btw: i'm from alabama, and you guys are delusional if you think you have anything on crimson tide football. 12 national titles, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kansasalumn</b>!
> hey that is your opinon, and I admire your opinon. We both have two of the best programs ever in college basketball. Hey in Kansas, KU baskeball is all there is. KSU Football is getting there, but in the state of Kansas. It is all about Kansas Jayhawks Basketball. To symobize basketball, that is too hard. Hey college basketball is life. How can you claim to have more fans??? I can not see that. Where is your backup? Kansas has fans everywhere. New York fans actually found where Wayne Simien was at last weekend, and got him a gift and watch the game from his hospital room. Yes Kentucky has a lot of fans. I am not distrubiting that, but to claim they have the most fans? Both states worship their basketball teams. Winningist program? ok I give you that, but both schools have wining recorrds, I bleive KU is 3 or 4 in all time victories. Finals Fours, sure, but it was not called finals fours until I bleive was the 1970's. but that is nitpicking. Actually KU won 4 national championships 1921 and 1922. It was called the Helms Championship before the NCAA championships. By the Way, Phog Allen was one of the few who started that NCAA Championships. More Kansas there.
> 
> Ok lets this stop it here. We both think our programs deserve to be the top 3 basketball programs of all time, and we know we are right on that aspect.
> ...


Yeah, lets stop. I said Kentucky has the most fans because thats normally a widely-said thing (where I live, anyway, and up in Kentucky). It was even said at the banquet I went to. But enough, we'll stop there, an opinion is an opinion, enough said.


There is no way UCLA has tradition at all. They had one really good streak where they won 10 NCAA championships in a row, then they won one in 1995 and thats it. They've never had been good other then those 11 years, and 10 of those years were with the same coach. They have a small gym, with not-too-many-fans, and when they go on the road, NONE of the fans follow them. Kentuckys fans follow them everywhere, and you're bound to see about 70-100 no matter what arena you end up going to while other colleges also have their share of fans that follow them.
Sure, UCLA had some really good teams in that 10-year streak, and one really good team with Jim Harrick in '95, but thats about it.

I'd like people to keep in mind, that this is only IMO.


----------



## maraboustork42 (Oct 8, 2002)

*10 + 1 = 11*

11 > 7

you have a nack for overvaluing your own accomplishments and undervaluing others. it is called a perception bias.

why are ucla's 10 titles less impressive bc they won 10 in a row? that is not a "really good streak". that is utter and complete dominance. if anything, the titles should be overvalued for such an impossible streak. if kentucky won 3 in a row the state wouldn't shut up for 30 years. 10 in a row? that is simply amazing.

"there is no way ucla has tradition at all" -- are you like 12? they have a tradition of kicking everyone's *** for 10 years in a row. that is more impressive to me than a hodgepodge of 7 titles over however many years.

you use titles/wins to support your argument for uk. that is what puts uk head and shoulders above unc/duke/kansas/indiana. but then ignore them when someone else kicks your butt by the same standard, you defy logic: "our 7 titles are better than your 11 bc we won them not all in a row" wtf?

btw if tubby leaves (and even if he doesn' t leave) uk is gonna have a hard time controlling their own state (pitino) let alone the nation.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: 10 + 1 = 11*



> Originally posted by <b>maraboustork42</b>!
> 11 > 7
> 
> you have a nack for overvaluing your own accomplishments and undervaluing others. it is called a perception bias.
> ...


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Did I say that 10 in a row wasn't a downright amazing accomplishment? No I didn't. Did I say that those teams who won those 10 in a row weren't good? No I didn't, I even said they were really good teams. Did I say that winning 10 a row wasn't complete dominance? No I didn't, so in a way you're arguing with yourself over that.

They don't have a tradition for kicking everyones ***, my friend. Lets look up tradition in the dictionary shall we?
tradition noun [C] 
a belief, principle or way of acting which people in a particular society or group have continued to follow for a long time, or all of these in a particular society or group

Note it says "which people in a particular society or group have continued to follow FOR A LONG TIME".

Ok, when, after those 10 years and that coach left, were they good besides 1995? When? Theres no doubt they were damn good in those 10 years and theres no doubt they were dominant, theres also no doubt that they were definitley the championship-to-be in 1995, but other than those years, they weren't exactly "kicking everybodys ***".

And you didn't even have to post such a hostile response. 
I even said THIS IS IMO.


----------



## maraboustork42 (Oct 8, 2002)

*i guess the truth hurts*

not meant to be hostile, but you obviously took it that way. and if you need to look up tradition in a dictionary, well, i may be waisting my time.

since i'm assuming you're about 15, i would think 10 years would qualify as A LONG TIME to you.

you're arguments/opinions are unimaginative, repetitive, and weak. you show a complete bias for uk in everything you type. i'm not denying you your inalienable right to look like a [strike]jackass[/strike], just pointing it out.

we do not call users by those names. You just insulted another user. We do not insult users. Please refer to PM. Thanks----kansasalumn

history will remember rupp as a racist (whether deserved or not, the SEC blah, blah, blah) and wooden as genius.

this coming from an unbiased fan of college basketball that hates both programs.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: i guess the truth hurts*



> Originally posted by <b>maraboustork42</b>!
> not meant to be hostile, but you obviously took it that way. and if you need to look up tradition in a dictionary, well, i may be waisting my time.
> 
> since i'm assuming you're about 15, i would think 10 years would qualify as A LONG TIME to you.
> ...


I didn't even compare Kentucky to UCLA in anything but fandom, and you call me a jackass because you can't seem to get over the fact that its my opinion. 

You didn't even try to answer my question on when they were good besides those 10 years and in '95. Honestly, as well, I'd like to know, like some other specific teams, my knowledge on UCLA is just a tad fuzzy, so I could be wrong on that, but how about you just try arguing with my points in that post before calling me a jackass for holding my own opinion.

I even agreed with you that they were dominant in those 10 years and they were really good then and in '95, and you still seem to have to call me a jack *** for my own opinon.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

This thread is turning to pure garbage really fast.....keep it up if you want it to be closed.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

for a followup, this thread supposed to be fun. I just made my arguements, and that is it. We do not insult other users, we do not call them names. Like what Hollis had said, any mor junk, say goodbye to this thead.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

Even though UCLA has the most championships, and 10 - 15 years of sheer dominance, I don't think you can consider it the top program. I think that really does have to go to Kentucky.

Why?

1. Sustained dominance. Kentucky has always fielded very good teams. Like most programs there have been a few off years, but generally, this is a top SEC team, and a top 25 team. UCLA on the other hand, went through pre-Wooden years where they weren't very good, or respected, and post-Wooden years when the same could be said. You could argue too, that the Harrick success is not worth mentioning because it was a one time thing, a fluke. Before, and after the UCLA program wasn't dominant. They weren't even really dominant during that tournament run.

2. Tradition. UCLA didn't have an pre-Wooden. However, Kentucky has had basketball tradition almost since the begining of the college game. One of the biggest programs forever, with a great track record. While you could argue that tradition must start somewhere (and it did with John Wooden), the Kentucky tradition has been around longer. Also, Kentucky tradition has always been very strong. However, now, due to Harrick and Lavin and most of the post-Wooden coaches, there really isn't the great respect for the program. Even before Pitino, when the Kentucky program was mired in controversy, there was still a great deal of respect for Kentucky basketball.

3. Fan support. Kentuck fans can be found everywhere. Here in Canada, Western US, Eastern US etc. etc. However, UCLA's fan base is mostly on the West coast. Don't get me wrong, it's big, but it's not all encompassing like Kentucky. It's like my argument about Syracuse earlier...while the fans may be very strong, the base is concentrated.

Now, in my opinion, points 1-3 can all be supported by Kansas basketball too. Maybe even more so with the long standing tradition. However, I think you need something to break the tie and it would have to be championships. Kentucky has won more. Which, displays more "overall" success. However, as is clear, it's not clear cut, it's like a 1a, and 1b situation. Both great programs.

In regard to UCLA's dominance with the 10 titles. It's great, and it does count for something. They would be in my top 5 programs most likely (I'd have to give it more thought, but I'm thinking Kentucky, Kansas, then (UCLA, UNC, Duke - not sure of the order) however, I think that their streak was just that, a streak. While one of the greatest ever in all sports, I think sustained success, over a longer period of time is more important.

This is a really good thread. I hope it doesn't get shut down. 

Please hook me up with some responses/rebuttles if you have any.

Oh, one more thing...Maraboustork...is that from the Welsh novel? That was a great read once I figured out how to go about it. Though, the ending freaked the crap out of me.


----------



## maraboustork42 (Oct 8, 2002)

*my apologies*

to anyone who took offense at my wording. i did not mean to insult anyone personally -- i was taking issue with a specific point of view. namely, "There is no way UCLA has tradition at all."

this is not an oppinion. this is delusion.

yes uk has a longer history, they have more fans, better paid coaches, etc.

but to deny what is unquestionably the greatest run in college basketball history, if not basketball/sports history (celtics dominated too), is either ignorance or envy.

springsteen a few thoughts for you:
1. yes. my favorite novel is marabou stork nightmares. written on 3 levels (coma patient listening to outside world, recollections of real world events that led to coma, and a fantasy world where these issues are resolved). irvine welsh is a genius. i would also recommend trainspotting (book is better than movie), glue, and porno (trainspotting 10 years later).

2. 11 is more than 7. ucla basketball was a supernova. it burned hot, bright, and then pretty much out. for me they have established/set the bar, and no one else has passed/raised it.

3. anyone can use smilies. they prove nothing.
   

ooh that really showed em!


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

*Re: my apologies*



> Originally posted by <b>maraboustork42</b>!
> 
> springsteen a few thoughts for you:
> 1. yes. my favorite novel is marabou stork nightmares. written on 3 levels (coma patient listening to outside world, recollections of real world events that led to coma, and a fantasy world where these issues are resolved). irvine welsh is a genius. i would also recommend trainspotting (book is better than movie), glue, and porno (trainspotting 10 years later).


Yeah, I've read Filth, and it was great. Well, quite morbid, but very interesting, and really unpredictable.

I've read exctasy, and I didn't really like any of the stories.

I have a copy of Glue, and I've read the first part of it. However, I had to put it down because school got too hectic. I most definately plan to pick it up and read it when school's done.

I haven't read trainspotting, because I'm lazy and while I find it easy to figure out the dialects in the other Welsh books, I have been intimidated by the fact the book comes with a glossary. Though, I will likely try to get it done this summer, as, like you, I am a big Welsh fan.

Back to the topic.

11 Championships is huge. No doubt. However, as I was trying to display, tradition, and being one of the "great programs" hinges on success no doubt, but also on other factors. Ones which, UCLA certainly has, like a tradition, and a large fan base, but that Kentucky and even Kansas just have more of. I'm not arguing with the bar being set, but UCLA isn't even a top 20 program now, and the point I was arguing that, almost without exception, Kansas and Kentucky have maintained a high level of dominance.

The UCLA teams of the 10 championships are the best college teams ever. As, they won so much (all the undefeated streaks and the titles), but I dont think that makes UCLA one of the top programs in terms of tradition, because tradion is something that is long standing.

I wasn't offended by any of your previous comments.


----------



## maraboustork42 (Oct 8, 2002)

trainspotting should be easier to read since you've had experience with welsh before. he switches narrators quite a bit, so you have to get used to each ones go to phrases to identify who is talking. it may be better than marabou.

filfth was ok. glue/porno/trainspotting much better.

if kentucky has so much tradition, why don't they have 12 titles (one more than ucla)?


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: my apologies*



> Originally posted by <b>maraboustork42</b>!
> "There is no way UCLA has tradition at all."
> 
> this is not an oppinion. this is delusion.


Yeah, that was a little strong on my part, sorry about that. 

But to answer your question whole-heartedly and un-biasedly (lol I don't think thats a word but whatever...) championships don't really make tradition. Sure they matter, but just because a team has won so many championships does not mean they have continuous tradition. Now, before we get into another argument, I'll go ahead and say: tradition or none, winning 11 championships is quite a feat. Kentucky hasn't won as many, true, but Kentucky has always had a good program, so they have continous tradition. UCLA only got good when Wooden was there. As soon as he was gone, UCLA went down in the dumps until Harrick came and they won it all in '95, then when he left, they were down in the dumps again. IMO, tradition is something continous, and while UCLA may have had a temporary tradition while Wooden was there, it certainly isn't continous. 

To put it simply: the main part of tradition is being good pretty much every year. When I say "good every year" I do not mean the best team every year. In those 10 years for UCLA they were the best team, same could be said for '95. Kentucky was the best team its fair share of years, but they haven't been the absolute best for 12 years, if they were, I'm sure we'd have 12 national titles.

Now, this being said, Wooden was a great coach and I'm not saying those 10 championships in a row was luck, that was pure skill and its phenomanal (spelling?) that Wooden did that. Hes a great coach, no doubt about it, but he was the only reason UCLA had tradition for those 10 years IMO.


----------



## Springsteen (Jan 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>maraboustork42</b>!
> 
> if kentucky has so much tradition, why don't they have 12 titles (one more than ucla)?


Yeah, UK fan sort of answered that for me. So I don't really think you want to re-read the same thing in different words.

Esentially, tradition can be created by winning games. However, having a great tradition does not cause you to win games. 

Also, it's possible to have solid programs each year without winning the championship. This is the case with Kentucky. Whereas, UCLA has gone through some serious dry years where their teams have been just terrible. Like I've said, if you look back over the last 50 years of basketball, there are very few periods (2 - 4 years for example), where a team from Kentucky was not highly regarded. Whereas, if you took a look at UCLA over some of those same periods, I'm postitive you couldn't say the same. 

I don't know where this is going though. Looks like were just running around in circles with this debate unfortunately. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Springsteen</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, UK fan sort of answered that for me. So I don't really think you want to re-read the same thing in different words.
> ...


:yes:


----------

