B1G Basketball Programs since 1985

[medinabuckeye1]

I did this for Ohio State for another thread but decided to do it for all 14 schools for comparison.  

Methodology:

• This is 1985-2022 ONLY.  
• I used WIKI which does NOT eliminate vacated wins.  If you did eliminate those, Minnesota would lose their F4, Michigan and Ohio State would each lose a bunch of stuff and I think there are some others as well.  
• For each category I have listed the years per and B1G Rank.  B1G Rank is obvious.  "Years per" is the average number of years between each.  Ie, MSU has won 11 regular season league titles since 1985 which works out to one every 3.45 years (38/11).  
• For the schools that were NOT in the B1G for this entire time (Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers), I treated league titles in their old leagues as equivalent to league titles in ours and obviously kept their pre-B1G accomplishments otherwise as well.  

My thoughts:

• Michigan State stands out as the CLEAR #1 in the league.  They are first in league titles (by two over tOSU), first in NCAA Appearances (by three over PU), first in S16's (by four over M), first in E8's (by two over M), first in F4's (by three over M), and tied with M, IU, and UMD for first in NC's.  
• Purdue and Michigan are REALLY at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as postseason success relative to regular season success with the tipping point being S16's.  Purdue is third in league titles (behind MSU and tOSU), second in NCAA Appearances behind only MSU, and third in S16's (behind MSU and M) but beyond that they falter.  They are tied with IL for 6th/7th with just three E8's and they have nothing beyond that.  Conversely, Michigan is only seventh in league titles and sixth in NCAA Appearances but they jump up to second in S16's, E8's, and F4's and they are tied with MSU, IU, and UMD for first in Championships.  

If you can't read the copy/paste spreadsheet, here are the categories I looked at, League titles:

• 11 Michigan State
• 9 Ohio State
• 8 Purdue
• 7 Indiana
• 6 Wisconsin
• 6 tie Illinois
• 5 Michigan
• 4 Maryland
• 1 Minnesota
• 1 Penn State
• 1 Rutgers
• 0 Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern

NCAA Appearances:

• 31 Michigan State
• 28 Purdue
• 26 Indiana
• 24 Wisconsin
• 24 tie Illinois
• 23 Michigan
• 22 Maryland
• 22 tie Ohio State
• 20 Iowa
• 12 Minnesota
• 7 Nebraska
• 4 Penn State
• 4 tie Rutgers
• 1 Northwestern

Interesting how big the dropoff is after Iowa.  

Sweet 16's:

• 16 Michigan State
• 12 Michigan
• 11 Purdue
• 10 Indiana
• 10 tie Wisconsin
• 9 Maryland
• 8 Ohio State
• 6 Illinois
• 3 Minnesota
• 3 tie Iowa
• 1 Penn State
• 0 Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern

E8's:

• 10 Michigan State
• 8 Michigan
• 5 Ohio State
• 4 Indiana
• 4 tie Wisconsin
• 3 Illinois
• 3 tie Purdue
• 2 Maryland
• 2 tie Minnesota
• 1 Iowa
• 0 Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern

F4's:

• 8 Michigan State
• 5 Michigan
• 3 Indiana
• 3 tie Ohio State
• 3 tie Wisconsin
• 2 Maryland
• 2 tie Illinois
• 1 Minnesota
• 0 Purdue, Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern

NC's:

• 1 Michigan State
• 1 tie Michigan
• 1 tie Indiana
• 1 tie Maryland
• 0 Ohio State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, Northwestern

[ELA]

And the first 1/3 of that is irrelevant for MSU.  From 1985-1997 they had 1 conference title and a pair of Sweet 16s.

I think MSU is the Oregon of college basketball, in that they may have actually had enough success in the past two decades to have elevated themselves into at least the tier immediately below the true Blue bloods.

Granted the biggest question with both is actually the exact opposite question.  Oregon football keeps losing coaches, which casts any sort of Blue blood status in doubt, and MSU basketball has not yet proven they could sustain a coaching change 

[Brutus Buckeye]

How would you tier the basketball programs Nationally, across the board?

Ignoring any tiers beneath the Big Ten, of course.

Or you can just cut if off after Iowa's tier I suppose.

[847badgerfan]

And the first 1/3 of that is irrelevant for MSU.  From 1985-1997 they had 1 conference title and a pair of Sweet 16s.

I think MSU is the Oregon of college basketball, in that they may have actually had enough success in the past two decades to have elevated themselves into at least the tier immediately below the true Blue bloods.

Granted the biggest question with both is actually the exact opposite question.  Oregon football keeps losing coaches, which casts any sort of Blue blood status in doubt, and MSU basketball has not yet proven they could sustain a coaching change

Same for UW. Only two appearances from 1985 to 1998. 1992 and 1997. Missed in 1998. Then they went on a roll. Only miss since was 2018.

[medinabuckeye1]

How would you tier the basketball programs Nationally, across the board?

Ignoring any tiers beneath the Big Ten, of course.

Or you can just cut if off after Iowa's tier I suppose.

IMHO there are five true CBB Blue Bloods (just going E->W):  Dook, Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA.  

By most metrics those five are the top five:

NC's:

• 11 UCLA
• 8 Kentucky
• 6 Carolina
• 5 Dook
• 5 Indiana
• 4 Kansas
• 4 UCONN
• 3 Villanova
• 2 Michigan State
• 2 Louisville
• 2 Cincinnati
• 2 OkSU
• 2 Florida
• 2 San Francisco
• 2 NCST

F4's:

• 21 Carolina
• 18 UCLA
• 17 Dook
• 17 Kentucky
• 16 Kansas
• 10 Michigan State
• 10 Ohio State
• 8 Louisville
• 8 Indiana
• 7 Villanova
• 6 Syracuse
• 6 Michigan
• 6 Arkansas
• 6 Cincinnati
• 6 Houston
• 6 OkSU

S16's:

• 44 Kentucky
• 35 Carolina
• 35 UCLA
• 32 Kansas
• 32 Dook
• 24 Lousiville
• 24 Syracuse
• 22 Indiana
• 20 Michigan State
• 20 Zona
• 19 Villanova
• 17 Notre Dame
• 17 UCONN
• 17 KSU
• 17 Michigan

NCAA Appearances:

• 59 Kentucky
• 52 Carolina
• 50 Kansas
• 49 UCLA
• 44 Dook
• 40 Indiana
• 40 Villanova
• 39 Louisville
• 37 Syracuse
• 37 Notre Dame
• 36 Texas
• 35 Michigan State
• 34 Zona
• 34 UCONN
• 34 Marquette

I went out to top-15 for each of these and included any school tied for 15th.  To me, the top-5 stand out as indicated above.  After that the next tier, IMHO, is schools on most or all of the above lists.  Other than the five aforementioned Blue Bloods, the other schools in or near the top-15 on all four lists are:

• Indiana:  40 appearances, 22 S16's, 8 F4's, 5 NC's
• UCONN:  34 appearances, 17 S16's, 5 F4's, 4 NC's - amazing that they have 4 NC's on only 5 F4's.  
• Villanova:  40 appearances, 19 S16's, 5 F4's, 3 NC's
• Michigan State:  35 appearances, 20 S16's, 10 F4's, 2 NC's
• Louisville:  39 appearances, 24 S16's, 8 F4's, 2 NC's
• Cincinnati:  33 appearances, 13 S16's, 6 F4's, 2 NC's
• Oklahoma State:  29 appearances, 11 S16's, 6 F4's, 2 NC's

Those seven, give-or-take a few, are basically your "next tier".  Then after that I'd have a VERY large tier of teams that are strong in one or more of the above categories but relatively weak in one or more other categories.  Schools such as:

• Florida:  21 appearances, 10 S16's, 5 F4's, 2 NC's - Too light on appearances and S16's to be in the top two tiers.  
• Ohio State:  31 appearances, 14 S16's, 10 F4's, 1 NC - Too light on S16's and NC's to be in the top two tiers.  
• Michigan:  27 appearances, 17 S16's, 6 F4's, 1 NC - Too light on appearances and NC's to be in the top two tiers.  

I'll add this:
I do NOT think that BB tiers are as "fixed" as football tiers for several reasons:
First, BB success involves far less guys so the recruiting aspect is more laser focused and one guy makes a MUCH bigger difference.  If a middling P5 CFB team gets one REALLY good recruit they are generally going to improve but just from middling to pretty good.  Conversely if a middling P5 CBB team gets one REALLY good recruit they could be a NC Contender.  

Second, I just think the "brands" in football are stronger because it is a bigger sport overall so it takes more to break into that.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Also, I'm not entirely sure how to classify UCLA.  I have them as one of the five blue bloods because their overall numbers justify it but if you look a little closer I'm not so sure.  UCLA's last NC was in 1995.  The other four Blue Bloods most recent NC's were:

• 2022 Kansas
• 2017 Carolina
• 2015 Dook
• 2012 Kentucky

That is a pretty big gap.  


UCLA has an amazing 11 NC's but 10 of them came in a twelve year period from 1964-1975 during which they won all but two years (1966, 1974).  

My point is that a HUGE chunk of UCLA's overall accomplishments came in a very short time under one coach and as that time fades further into history it loses relevance.  

[847badgerfan]

If UCLA is a blue blood, so is Indiana.

So neither then?

[medinabuckeye1]

If UCLA is a blue blood, so is Indiana.

So neither then?

I get where you are coming from but I don't think it is that simple. UCLA beats Indiana in every category I listed:

• 11-5 in NC's
• 18-8 in F4's
• 35-22 in S16's
• 49-40 in appearances. 

Most of those aren't even close.

I can justify Indiana NOT being a blue blood based on the overall numbers. 

UCLA is a different case. Their overall numbers are really good and CLEARLY justify "blue blood" status. 

[847badgerfan]

I get where you are coming from but I don't think it is that simple. UCLA beats Indiana in every category I listed:

• 11-5 in NC's
• 18-8 in F4's
• 35-22 in S16's
• 49-40 in appearances.

Most of those aren't even close.

I can justify Indiana NOT being a blue blood based on the overall numbers.

UCLA is a different case. Their overall numbers are really good and CLEARLY justify "blue blood" status.

10 of those 11 NC's were in a 12 year period under Wooden, who had a payroll larger than most NBA teams. Since 1975, they have been largely mediocre.

[NorthernOhioBuckeye]

If UCLA is a blue blood, so is Indiana.

So neither then?

I agree. If I were asked to name the blue bloods of college basketball without researching the numbers, Indiana would be one of them along with UCLA. UCLA as a powerhouse for a decade or so, but Indiana has had success over a much longer span of time. 

[medinabuckeye1]

10 of those 11 NC's were in a 12 year period under Wooden, who had a payroll larger than most NBA teams. Since 1975, they have been largely mediocre.

That is why I'm not sure that they are truly a blue blood.  Like I said, by overall numbers they equal or exceed the others but if you take out Wooden's 12 year run from 1964-1975 not so much.  I think calling them "mediocre" is a bit of a stretch but they haven't performed at "blue blood" level outside of that one run.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Just for comparison, UCLA since 1985:

• Nine Regular Season League Titles - In the B1G this would be tied with tOSU for second behind MSU's 11.  
• 28 NCAA Appearances - In the B1G this would be tied with PU for second behind MSU's 31.  
• 16 S16's - In the B1G this would be tied with MSU for first.  
• Five F4's - In the B1G this would be tied with M for second behind MSU's 8.  
• One NC - In the B1G this would be tied with MSU, M, IU, and UMD for first.  

I agree that this isn't quite "blue blood" level, but it is not fair to call it "mediocre".  They are nearly even with MSU since expansion.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Michigan State is the clear #1 in the B1G over the past 37/38 Tournaments/Seasons since expansion, who is #2?
Which set of results would you choose for your team over the next ~40 years:

Personally I'd go:

• Michigan:  They have an NC and they are best of this group at S16's, E8's, and F4's.  The downside is that they have a lot more bad (non-tournament) seasons than Purdue and they are last among this group in league titles.  
• Indiana:  They have an NC.  They are also pretty good among this group at basically everything with no glaring weaknesses compared to the others.  
• Ohio State:  They are best among this group in league titles which matter to me and they are pretty good among this group in E8's and F4's.  The downsides are obviously the lack of a NC and the large number of bad (non-tournament) seasons.  
• Purdue:  They are best among this group at consistently fielding a pretty good team (appearances) along with nearly as good as Ohio State at winning league titles and nearly as good as Michigan at getting out of the first weekend of the NCAA but they are just dreadfully awful at NCAA games beyond the first weekend.  

Honestly, I can see a credible argument for any of the four.  If you value postseason success you'll go with Michigan.  If you value league titles you'll go with Ohio State.  If you value consistency you'll go with Purdue.  If you value being decent in all categories rather than good at some and bad at others you'll go with Indiana.  

What say you?