I don't understand the argument for Indiana over Uconn. Huskies have more titles, with more coaches, more recently, and have the same drawback of not being consistently a top team. Uconn clears them in nearly all fields.
Good point. Why aren't we talking about Oklahoma State. Clearly a blue blood after those back to back championships is 45-46. Or Temple, 5th all time is wins!
I mean they're in my tier one, I'm using it to justify Uconn. But pre 1980 Duke has 0 championships a 2 runner-ups including a 12 year tournament drought from 1966-1978.
Fair, but Duke has really only been an elite program since the early-mid 1980s (about 10 years longer) but have only had success under one coach unlike Uconn.
Tier 1: Duke, UNC, Kentucky
Tier 2: Uconn, Kansas, UCLA
Tier 3: Indiana
Is this a fair assessment? Also how much longer until Indiana falls out of the ranks?
Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why they don’t get more minutes? Neither of their gameplay is perfect, but it seems like they help fill the rebounding and shooting weaknesses.
Riley was too old to ever really have a chance of building anything at Nebraska. Clawson has time and has proven success at multiple different schools.
He has a great history of building up programs in the troughs.
Fordham: 0-11, 9-3
Richmond 3-8, 11-3
Bowling Green: 7-6, 2-10, 10-3
Wake forest: 3-9, 8-0
Nebraska: 3-9,