Dude, it's Cats fans that constantly run it in the ground that nothing matters but NC banners, and that conference titles are completely meaningless; so you're contradicting yourself with that statement.
Forget where UF is, that's not even the topic; with that scoring structure teams like the ones I mentioned could be ranked right up there with the real bluebloods.
One team could win the lame ass Big Sky conference every year, getting 8 points for every title, make some tourneys that they get blown out of regularly, and end up ranked close to programs with multiple National Championships, which only get 10 points for every national title.
Think I'm kidding? Look past the first page where you're ranked and look where some of these other programs are ranked.
First 7 make sense with UK, KU, UCLA (this one doesn't back up your theory either; you're constantly telling anyone who will listen that outside UCLA's single run, they aren't anything), UNC, DU, UL, UConn (whoops, here's the team you just said has been a nobody, ranked at #7. Know why? 8 points for every one of the 29 times they've won their conference.), IU, and Cincy and 'Zona round out the Top 10.
Cincy at #9? Their only 2 titles were in '61 and '62, but they've won conferences like CUSA, Great Midwest, Metro, Missouri Valley, and the MAC 27 times.
Utah at #12? Based on what? 1 NC in 1916. Yes, 1916. And they've won the WAC 29 times. The WAC.
Texas at #14? No NC's, and only 3 Final Fours, but 25 conference titles got them here.
Princeton at #15? No NC's, and only a single Final Four, but 32 EIBL and Ivy League titles.
I could go on and on up to the Top 25 with absurd teams ranked way too high, but you get the jist.
As I said, you can't give the same recognition and 8 points to teams for winning mid-major conferences like the WAC, Metro, or Missouri Valley that you give teams for winning the ACC, Big East, or Big 10.
Additionally, giving 8 points to teams for winning the Metro conference and only 2 more points, 10, to teams for winning the NC skews the rankings completely. Doesn't matter if it was last year or throughout a team's history, 8/10 points is 8/10 points. There's too much credit being given to teams who win conference titles, many of them not even really legit DI conferences.
Sorry, but after the Top 10, this list is an epic fail because of the scoring structure. UK's own policies seem to say as much; you guys hang Final Four and up banners, right? Don't even bother with conference banners.
Yet, by this absurd scoring structure a team gets 8 points for a conference title and only 5 for a FF appearance. Ridiculous. The NC runner-up only gets 6.
A better structure would be 10 for a NC, 8 for a runner-up, 6 for a F4, 4 for an E8, 3 for a S16, 2 for an NCAA appearance, and 2 for a conference title since winning a conference only gets you an NCAA appearance anyway, except in those stupid situations where a conference tourney title also sends the winner to the dance.
I think you'd see a much more legit ranking after adding up those totals.