Only Two Schools That Have Won NCs in Football and Basketball in Last 30 Years
With the success of traditional football powers Oregon and Oklahoma in this year's NCAAs, it got me to thinking about the schools that have combined football greatness with basketball greatness the best. And by the ultimate metric - national championships - only two schools are in the conversation.
In the last 30 years, only two schools have won national championships in both sports - Florida and Michigan. Florida is by far the leader, with three NCs in football and two in basketball. Michigan has one of each. If either Oklahoma or Notre Dame win it all this year, they will join this exclusive club.
Looking at the list of champions in both sports, though, really spells out just how difficult it is to be both a football school and a basketball school. The traditional basketball powers - Kentucky, Kansas, Louisville, Duke, Indiana, UConn, Syracuse - are awful at football. The traditional football powers - Alabama, LSU, everybody else in the SEC except Kentucky, USC, Florida State - are mostly awful at basketball.
Only a few schools have come close to being great (at times) in both - Texas, Ohio State, MSU, maybe even Wisconsin. And now Oklahoma, Oregon and Notre Dame. But it's still mostly true that you either have to be a basketball school or a football school, and it's hard to be both.
March 25th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^
March 25th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^
Is it okay if they screw the pooch?
Wouldn't that be a travel?
I had to edit this. Due to positioning, my "witty" reply made no sense.
March 25th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^
March 25th, 2016 at 11:39 AM ^
Crazy to think that it has been almost 30 years since 89. We know that we will always have the funds and support to compete at both, but to win a basketball championship nowadays takes recruiting classes that feature 4 NBA players. Have to work to get back there and not let 2013 be a fluke.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:13 PM ^
in basketball is really the only way to pull it off...very rare for a one off team to pull it off due to the high variance and chance of the tourney.
Look at Kansas and MSU. Elite teams every year and only 1 title for each over the past 2 decades.
Amazing how Uconn managed to win 4 in the past 15 years.
you mention should make it easier for a one-off team to do it. Certainly far easier in basketball than football. It is actually a bit surprising that no random teams have won recently (past 20 years) in basketball given title game participants like Wisconsin, Butler, Memphis, Illinois, Ga Tech, Arkansas, Utah, etc. All you need in basketball is a hot streak (Ga Tech), randomly good recruiting class (Michigan, Memphis) or a unique combo of good veterans and coaching (Butler, Wisconsin) to go far in the NCAA tourney.
experience plus a couple studs can get you there too. hell, butler made back-to-back finals and lost one of those to a UConn who didn't really have many studs either.
March 25th, 2016 at 11:52 AM ^
I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been in Seattle in 1989 and Pasedena on 1/1/1998 to cheer for each of the accomplishments of outstanding Michigan teams.
March 25th, 2016 at 11:55 AM ^
Michigan is the only school in NCAA Divison I to have won a national championship in all four of fooball, basketball, baseball, and hockey.
Minnesota is missing basketball, Michigan State is missing baseball, and Ohio State is missing hockey. No other Big Ten team has even three of the four.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:19 PM ^
great point.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:36 PM ^
Fuckin right doggie
So do Stanford and Cal. Other than those mentioned (MSU, OSU, UMinn, UCLA, Stanford, Cal), nobody else has more than two of the four.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^
On a whole other level, Florida had an embarrassment of riches winning the national titles in both football and basketball during the same school year.
Michigan won for football and hockey during the same 97-98 school year but it's not quite the same as a football/basketball combo. We might have had a chance for that in 89 had the phantom holding call not been called on Chris Stapleton's fake punt in the Rose Bowl...but that's a whole other depressing issue I'd rather not revisit.
It was worse than Charles White's phantom touchdown because it was Bo's last Rose Bowl, IIRC.
If Washington State had scored on their final drive because the most flagrant offensive pass interference (CW was pulled down by WSU end), that would have been the worst no-call ever.
Sorry to pick at the scab, but some wounds just won't heal.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:05 PM ^
Oregon has been very good for 15-20 years consistently and with the Nike money and proof that they aren't a program dependent on a singular coach, they aren't going anywhere. They didn't have a nice run, they are still on a nice run that figures to last a while.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:05 PM ^
Oregon a traditional football power, they have been very up and down through their history until the last decade and the influx of Nike money. The basketball program has been mediocre, I would have expected them to be more dominant like the football team has been recently, Altman has won a lot of games there but still only one (barely) top 25 finish in the final AP poll the last 8 seasons.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^
It's not hard to be both if you have a big athletics budget (we do.) A national brand/fan & alumni base helps as well (we have those, too.)
I'd further suggest that it's much harder to build a non-football power into an elite program than it is to build a non-basketball power into one. All it takes in basketball is a good enough recruiting coach to grab one or two elite or close prospects per season (you could even argue fewer than that if you really hit the jackpot on a couple guys) and sustain for a decade or so, long enough to change the perceptions of the younger kids coming up. Most of these kids could give a shit that Kentucky has X number of national titles all time. But they do care about recent success and the ability to get to the NBA.
Tradition matters to fans. Results are what counts for recruits. And although it would be nice for Michigan basketball to have the fan support they do at Kansas or North Carolina (which, by the way, I firmly believe could and will come IF we can sustain high level results for a generation or so,) if we have a coach that can win consistently and get kids to the NBA consistently, the recruits will follow and we'll start to see our name pop up in those lists of elite programs as time passes.
It's a process and doesn't happen in one season, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Remember, Duke's resume prior to Mike Krzyzewski's arrival looked not so disimilar to Michigan's. In fact, we have one national title to our credit, while they had none. I'm sure there was a point in time where Duke fans swore they'd never count themselves among the Kentuckys and UCLAs of the world, but now here they are.
Sorry for the rant, but it bothers me every time Michigan fans say we have to "choose" between being a "football school" and a "basketball school." No we don't. Michigan is big enough (and rich enough) to be both.
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. It IS hard.
If it weren't, there would be an example of a team that's been consistently great at both sports, and there isn't.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is unprecedented. There is no school that is consistently great at both sports.
Florida had by far the best run in modern times, but that was a really short bolt of lightning. Until relatively recent times, Florida pretty much sucked at both football and basketball.
They never won a single conference championship in football until mid-'80's, and that one was vacated because of recruiting violations. They never made the NCAA's in hoops until the late '80's, and those records were vacated, too. They had a magical run for part of the 2000's. That's it.
OSU and Michigan have both had periods of greatness in hoops, and UCLA and UNC have had some great football teams, but NO ONE is a perennial power in both sports.
It's never happened.
Let me amend that: It's not hard if you have the resources and dedication and don't worry yourself about whether you're a football school or basketball school.
For almost all athletics programs, it would be difficult to succeed at both, since it's tough enough just to succeed at one (especially football, where even the elite programs tend to go through significant down stretches - how'd being a football school work out for us this past decade or so?)
Michigan is rare - We make more money than almost anyone. We're right up there in the same elite money-making group as Texas, OSU, and.... not many more. Oregon has recently come into an absurd amount of Nike money - look at where they were before that influx and where they've gone since and you'll start to see what a big difference $ makes. Look at Harbaugh's camp tour - You think Purdue can do that? That's the Michigan advantage. Does anyone really think a dynamic and talented basketball coach couldn't find creative ways to spend a few bucks and really get the national focus on Ann Arbor?
We also have a bigger combined fan and alumni base than almost anyone, and when you consider the national reach of that base (almost every other program you can find is much more a regional presence than a national one) we can recruit nationally in ways that almost everyone else can't. Everyone knows that block M, and there are grads and fans in every state.
You bring up Florida as an example, but I think it supports my case better than it does yours. They "pretty much sucked" until recent times. I guess winning multiple national titles in the two major sports really illustrates the concept of "sleeping giant." I'll bet there were Florida fans that thought they'd never be good at either sport. Then, once they got good at football, I'm sure there were fans that thought they'd never win at hoops because they were a "football school."
You also bring up Ohio State, but remember that Matta has been to two final fours and was runner-up in one of them. They were good for a stretch under Ayers (Fab Five upset a #1 seed OSU, I'm sure you'll recall,) and they won a national title in the 60's during four trips to the final four. OSU is a lot like Michigan: You don't have to stretch your imagination far to envision them being perceived as a national program with all the history of a Duke or Kansas. All you have to do is flip the results of a couple final four games and they're right there. People talk like it's some unattainable pipe dream for Michigan to be considered a great basketball program.
Go do some reading, look at all the times we were one game away. Then think about how the athletic department basically burned the basketball program to the ground for a decade and a half. Now ask yourself what things might look like today if we'd won a couple of those championship games we lost in the early days, and those teams in the 90's stayed good because even after the Fab Five drama, the AD spent money on facilities good coaches? If we had won those titles in the 60's instead of just missing, won in 89, and then followed up the Fab Five era with a couple more decades of final four trips and maybe another title or two (hey, we just missed a couple years back so this isn't a stretch at all,) not many people would be talking about how Michigan "can't" be good at both sports.
What does Michigan State have that we don't have, exactly? Until Tom Izzo got there, they had the same amount of national titles we had. Amazing what one great coach can do for a program. When Izzo retires, nobody is going to be talking about how Dantonio already has the football team winning, and you simply can't be good at two sports! They're going to perceive MSU as a basketball power until if and when they stop being good.
And they've done it all with less money than we've got, not much of a national fanbase, and at a less academically prestigious school. So exactly how is it that having a good football tradition somehow puts us at a disadvantage on the basketball court?
March 25th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^
March 25th, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 25th, 2016 at 12:23 PM ^
Football team b: lost to both rivals. One in gut wrenching finish. The other was a blowout. Both at home. Crushed above average sec team in above average bowl.
Basketball team a: crushed main rival at their place during regular season. Won big ten tourney. Embarrassed in tourney.
Basketball team b: stumbled through regular season with some nice wins and no bad losses. Won a play in game.
You would really choose team b in both sports? Get real.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 25th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^
Hell no. A 2 losing to a 15 is what will be on the list every time March Madness rolls around each year, at least for a while. No thanks. They can keep that lasting season.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
MSU beat their football rivals, won the conference regular season title and championship game, then went to the inaugural Final Four. Then they had a good season in basketball, and won the B1G tournament championship.
We won a bowl game that no one outside of Michigan or Florida cared about. Oh, and beat a team that was being called the worst to ever get an at-large berth, just to be part of the final 64. Zero Championships.
To prefer the latter over the former is an absolute loser's attitude.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:07 PM ^
Florida managed to win both within the same year. And against the exact same school. That's the kind of feat we might not see again for a long, long time.
Its hard enough for a school to be simultaneously good at football and basketball. But to be elite and win titles in the same year is incredible.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^
to pull out and stare at my laminated front pages of the News and Press with Rumeal Robinson at the free throw line in the title game...
March 25th, 2016 at 12:22 PM ^
Saying ND has come close to being great in football OR basketball the last 30 years is very tenuous. They had a very long stretch where they were terrible at football.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:46 PM ^
What are you talking about? 28 years ago in 1988 they were unanimous national champs in football. That was only a year before our 89 basketball championship. I can't stand Notre Dame either but what you said is just not true. In fact, from 88-93 they were 64-9-1.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
If you measure traditional powers by, just for the sake of argument, the teams that have made it to at least the Final Four more than any other (the point at which, if you do it enough, you probably are a force in the hoops world), you get North Carolina, UCLA, Duke, Kentucky and Kansas in the top five, with the second tier (teams that have been there several times, but not nearly as many) being Big Ten heavy with Michigan State, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio State and a few others.
March 25th, 2016 at 12:47 PM ^
Will admit it was not immediate, but I'd say within ten seconds would be a fair guess.
I'd add UCLA to your list of "occasionally great at both".
Since 1980, Michigan has been in 4 Final Fours. Here are the schools that have been in more:
Duke - 12
NC - 11
Kentucky - 9
Kansas - 8
Louisville - 7
Sparty - 7
UConn - 5
UCLA - 5
That's it.
I don't see any schools there that have done much of anything in football. UCLA had a run in the '80's, and of course Sparty has had recent success. Certainly no power football schools.
To me, this is further evidence that Michigan is pretty much as close to a two sport power as exists in Div I.
Slow work day.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Not sure if you were replying to my list, but...
Yes, Florida has four Final 4 appearances since 2000, and 5 since. 1980. Missed them - good catch.
Others with 4 since 1980:
Georgetown, Arizona, Syracuse, Indiana.
We've been to four in spite of essentially abandoning the basketball program for a decade and a half. Imagine if the AD's response to the Fab Five fiasco had been to pay for a big upgrade in facilities and a new, top-level coach that could win without cheating? I don't know how many final four trips we'd have made, but I'll bet it'd be more than four.
Instead, we took the NCAA punishments and voluntarily added to them! Our facilities were decades behind when JB took over. Just think of what our basketball program might look like if we'd only experienced one or two poor post-Fab Five seasons instead of locking ourselves in hoops purgatory.
The one thing every school on that list has in common is that they have been fully dedicated to succeeding at the highest level in basketball. We are the only team on that list where the athletic department has actively sabotaged its own program, and the fan base has adopted a "Woe is me, we'll never be good at this sport" attitude.
If you add UM to the list with 4 Final Fours, and then factor in UM's football national championships, clearly we are the leaders and the best!
light the corners of my mind...