ESPN/Sagarin All-Time Men's Basketball rankings

[TheGamer2]

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

Pretty interesting list. Illinois ranked 6th all time. Good to see the Big Ten get its props throughout the decade rankings.

[toonarmy]

The Big Ten with 5 of the top 10, and 8 of the top 15 all-time? LMAO! Someone needs to put some WD-40 in that computer.

[pk500]

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

Pretty interesting list. Illinois ranked 6th all time. Good to see the Big Ten get its props throughout the decade rankings.

Toon is right. Throw some damn 10W30 mixed with WD40 into that computer. For example:

Duke - 3 national tournament titles, 14 Final Fours.
Illinois - 0 national tournament titles, 5 Final Fours.

Yet Illinois is No. 6 all time, Duke No. 7.

Oh-kay ...

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

Pretty interesting list. Illinois ranked 6th all time. Good to see the Big Ten get its props throughout the decade rankings.

Toon is right. Throw some damn 10W30 mixed with WD40 into that computer. For example:

Duke - 3 national tournament titles, 14 Final Fours.
Illinois - 0 national tournament titles, 5 Final Fours.

Yet Illinois is No. 6 all time, Duke No. 7.

Oh-kay ...

Take care,
PK

Maybe games played against Big 10 teams are weighed heavier than games played in tournaments?
It does make you wonder how you can be #6 without ever winning a title.

[F308GTB]

As a Michigan grad, I'm shocked to see them at #13. With that kind of ranking it doesn't lend much credibility to the rankings IMO. Way too high on the list.

[TheGamer2]

without going into the breakdown of how Illinois was rated higher than Duke per each decade until a certain era, I'll just say I drink the Orange kool-aid and hate Duke and I don't see anything wrong with the ratings.

[XXXIV]

As a Michigan grad, I'm shocked to see them at #13. With that kind of ranking it doesn't lend much credibility to the rankings IMO. Way too high on the list.

Yeah BUT...Looking at the list thats pretty low for a big 10 team as they have 8 in the top 15...Thats right 8 Good stuff!

[XXXIV]

without going into the breakdown of how Illinois was rated higher than Duke per each decade until a certain era, I'll just say I drink the Orange kool-aid and hate Duke and I don't see anything wrong with the ratings.

I can agree with that

[pk500]

without going into the breakdown of how Illinois was rated higher than Duke per each decade until a certain era, I'll just say I drink the Orange kool-aid and hate Duke and I don't see anything wrong with the ratings.

Hell, I DESPISE Duke and drink a different kind of Orange Kool-Aid from Syracuse. But facts are facts, and there's no way Illinois should be ahead of Duke, regardless of what the Illini did in the 40s and 50s.

Still, f*ck Duke.

Take care,
PK

[toonarmy]

Another problem I have is UNC at number 4. They should be above Kansas. I think their number of titles combined with the fact they are neck and neck with Kentucky for most all-time wins should count for something. As much as I hate Duke like everyone else, they should be higher than the Illinois. The more I look at this list, the more I am thinking WTF?

[TheGamer2]

I really don't think the list takes into consideration NC and tournament success, but the number of wins and losses and strength of opponents. Which is why part of equation is number of years. Illinois may have just accumulated more wins over the years than Duke. Also historically, the Big Ten has been considered a stronger conference over the history of college basketball. Yes Duke's resume is better than Illinois and most other teams, but the Illini has consistently averaged at least 20 wins per season for a longer period than Duke. The Sagarin ratings have always been more about strength of schedule as far as I can remember as well. Which is why Northwestern is a 77 when they probably shouldn't be in the top 150.

[Dimmu]

without going into the breakdown of how Illinois was rated higher than Duke per each decade until a certain era, I'll just say I drink the Orange kool-aid and hate Duke and I don't see anything wrong with the ratings.

Nothing wrong with those ratings at all. Now, back to my orange kool-aid.

[fsquid]

Pat Forde has a great column about these rankings on ESPN.com

[hellbent]

Pat Forde has a great column about these rankings on ESPN.com

From Forde's column ( at http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/ ... id=4531910):

"There appears to be way too much respect given to accomplishments during the segregated, set-shot, eight-team-NCAA-tournament era and not nearly enough to programs that have thrived since the sport exploded behind Bird-Magic in 1979."

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. Did college basketball as we know it today even truly exist prior to widespread racial integration on teams? I don't think so.

[toonarmy]

Pat Forde has a great column about these rankings on ESPN.com

From Forde's column ( at http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/ ... id=4531910):

"There appears to be way too much respect given to accomplishments during the segregated, set-shot, eight-team-NCAA-tournament era and not nearly enough to programs that have thrived since the sport exploded behind Bird-Magic in 1979."

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. Did college basketball as we know it today even truly exist prior to widespread racial integration on teams? I don't think so.

That's a good point. It would be interesting to see how the ratings would pan out if they were done from 1960 onward when things were getting more integrated. Obviously UCLA would be a clear number one if it was done that way, and North Caroline and Duke would likely be higher as well.

[TheGamer2]

Same can be said about any sport. I question if Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Cy Young would have been as successful in an integrated MLB.

[toonarmy]

Same can be said about any sport. I question if Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Cy Young would have been as successful in an integrated MLB.

I think the NHL may be an exception

[TheGamer2]

Yeah you're probably right about that.