NCAA Title Count
- Thread starter B1GEast
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 3,681
- Reaction Score
- 8,190
Being we deserve 3 titles for this one I’d say we are tied.
Titles should only be noted as those won from 1985 on. That is when the NCAA went to 4 regions and 64 teams. Prior championships had only 32 and some 16 teams.
Do what the NFL did. They starting noting how many Super Bowls a team has won. They don’t count the old championships that were won with half as many teams.
Do what the NFL did. They starting noting how many Super Bowls a team has won. They don’t count the old championships that were won with half as many teams.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2014
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction Score
- 2,112
[Once again, I posted a reply that someone else substantially replicated two minutes ahead of me. Apologies, but I don't have much time to edit here.]
That's how the NFL treats it, in many ways. People usually rate franchises based on their Super Bowl wins, which begin with the 1966-67 season and the creation of an AFL-NFL matchup, which soon became a merger. There's no huge difference between NFL football in, say, 1959 and 1968, but it's arbitrarily cut off into a before and after based on the institution of that one game.
When it comes to the subject at hand here, college basketball, I'd argue anything before the era of integration is substantially devalued in terms of historical weight, especially given the preeminence of Black players since they began participating in substantial numbers. Because of that, the 1948, 1949, 1951 and 1958 Kentucky titles can't be given the same weight as the ones from 1978 forward. It's not that they don't count at all, they're just not as relevant.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,163
- Reaction Score
- 21,363
I think 1985 is the best cutoff too.
Another option is 1986 with the implementation of the 3 point line which has had a significant impact on overall game strategy. Ironically, gone are the days of 2 slow bigs sitting down low, it was boring. It also led to banning dunks for a few years. That 78 Kentucky team had Phillips, Robey, and Aleksinas.
1985/86 was also the implementation of the shot clock. Huge seismic shift with the shot clock and 3 point line. Who remembers the stall and four corners. Boring. I recall Fairfield playing Providence in 78/79 and sitting on the ball for many minutes at a time. I was listening on the radio and had to shut it off, it was terrible.
IMO, anything before this is not relevant to the current state of the game. The others are just ancient history.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction Score
- 28,591
Unless an 8-team field should be held in the same regard (1948 & 49). That’s not even a conference tournament now.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,172
- Reaction Score
- 35,192
I had a post a few days ago that examined this. Reasonable cutoffs are:
1970 - Before which teams would decline NCAA bids to participate in the NIT
1975 - Before which only one team per conference was allowed
1980 - Before which at most two teams per conference were allowed
1985 - Before which the Tournament had fewer than 64 teams
But now we have the most championships over that span, regardless of when you start counting.
1970 - Before which teams would decline NCAA bids to participate in the NIT
1975 - Before which only one team per conference was allowed
1980 - Before which at most two teams per conference were allowed
1985 - Before which the Tournament had fewer than 64 teams
But now we have the most championships over that span, regardless of when you start counting.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 87,738
- Reaction Score
- 327,932
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2023
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction Score
- 2,443
The only reason the tourney expanded to 64 was the 32 team tournament was wildly popular (and Bird/Magic) was a huge part of that. You have to count that championship and 32 is the natural starting point for the modern era.
If I were older I suspect I would realize that college basketball became popular once the UCLA dynasty passed and everyone got a chance (expansions to 32 to 64 to 68 and likely on). Much like the women's game is growing in the post-UConn dynastic period (although I am skeptical).
If I were older I suspect I would realize that college basketball became popular once the UCLA dynasty passed and everyone got a chance (expansions to 32 to 64 to 68 and likely on). Much like the women's game is growing in the post-UConn dynastic period (although I am skeptical).
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,172
- Reaction Score
- 35,192
It's missing Michigan State, but still shows how dominant East Coast basketball has been, with us as the anchor.
Sorry, (now defunct) "conference of champions."
Big Ten also extremely underwhelming.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 87,738
- Reaction Score
- 327,932
Sparty is there - just a bad choice in logo color against map background
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,172
- Reaction Score
- 35,192
Yes, you're right. Eek.
SubbaBub
Your stupidity is ruining my country.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,156
- Reaction Score
- 24,784
As of today, 1975 seems like the correct answer. This topic has a UCLA problem. How do you ignore the period that established CBB as a national sport. Yes, college basketball existed before Wooden, Alcindor, and Russell but ask anyone what the best team(s) were and 90% of people will point to those UCLA teams and it doesn't matter they were under completely different rules and CBB wasn't the big money enterprise so a few guys buying the best players and many schools didn't allow black players at all Like talking about baseball and ignoring Babe Ruth or golf and ignoring Bobby Jones.
They are relevant to the modern game but they were so pivotal to the sport you can't ignore them. Not yet, anyway.
Same for 1979. The Bird/Magic duel launched the tournament into the national consciousness. Wooden was dominant, but so was Trinity Squash. Not everyone cared.
By rights we should start at the 64 team at-large era. As we've seen, winning a conference isn't a prerequisite to win the tournament. At the very least, start with the 32 team years.
1975 gives a nod to all of the above and happens to be a round 50-year period. No one thinks of Army football as a blueblood football program, yet they were as dominant as the Kentucky BB program of that era.
So I posted this in another thread and in that 50 year period the following are the true top programs.
They are relevant to the modern game but they were so pivotal to the sport you can't ignore them. Not yet, anyway.
Same for 1979. The Bird/Magic duel launched the tournament into the national consciousness. Wooden was dominant, but so was Trinity Squash. Not everyone cared.
By rights we should start at the 64 team at-large era. As we've seen, winning a conference isn't a prerequisite to win the tournament. At the very least, start with the 32 team years.
1975 gives a nod to all of the above and happens to be a round 50-year period. No one thinks of Army football as a blueblood football program, yet they were as dominant as the Kentucky BB program of that era.
So I posted this in another thread and in that 50 year period the following are the true top programs.
- Status