I'm playing devil's advocate here because we absolutely belong among the top 5 based on championship pedigree across multiple decades and coaches, but polls are actually a reasonable measure of a program's relevance year in and year out over a long period. "Who matters in this sport?" is one valid definition of blue blood status.
My guess would be higher, but not, like, a ton higher. Probably 8-10 range.
And the same week when James Madison lost.
Let them get fat and happy chowing down on ACC cupcakes and then stick them in our bracket please…
Can this Poll be run with different start dates? Would be interesting to see this if a start date of 1980 or 1990 was used?
When we win, others hang banners.
Are you talking about the All-Time AP Poll thing? Just posting with nothing referring to anything above and I assume you're talking about the first post, us being #4 this week.
Given that there are 3 weeks worth of voting that is "shelved" between the end of the regular season and crowning of the champion (who is always declared #1), the champion should be credited with 3 weeks worth of being #1, retroactively. It is a shame that last year we were #1 for only one week and only at the end. The champion should be rewarded in some way. So with 5 championships, UConn would have 25 points x 3 weeks x 5 championships = 375 more points. Similar reasoning for other champions. Corrections welcome.
Nailed it!
Purdue on the ropes too
Didn’t Dook hang a AP#1 banner in 1999?
In fact, we weren't at all. We haven't been #1 in the AP Poll since 2009, despite winning 3 titles since then.
It certainly can be done. Not by me—that original poll was a huge labor of love by the OP—but using the college basketball reference page, someone could go through and tabulate the 17 polls each year (probably easiest by downloading as a csv and manipulating it that way, but still too much time).
But...what does this have to do with UConn being disrespected?
Ahhh. Ok. Thanks for the correction. This says a lot about the AP poll.
I mean, we deserved a pretty big drop after Seton Hall, and anyone who ranked us 4-5 (rather than 1-3) was going to have us lower. We didn't move in the polls on a macro scale, but on the micro scale it is clear we were dropped by a bunch before starting a rebound.
Again, I'm not complaining about the ranking, or the poll; it really doesn't matter right now. I'm talking about the multi-decade constant rating of UConn lower than all other reporters. And it's by this one guy in San Francisco.
He starts where College Basketball Reference starts having more than one poll. They used to have one final poll before the start of the post-season. Could have added those too—it wouldn't change a ton. But mid-way through the 1948-1949 season, you get weekly polls. I don't think it does much to shift this for anyone—schools like NYU of Eastern Kentucky don't get some unfair benefit. But I think starting there—when the NCAA tournament is expanding and has been around over a decade—really does give you a good size and scope of the history of the game. When you start digging through, it doesn't really over-value some of those more traditional blue-bloods as you might think.
Opinions are like ... everyone has one, and they usually stink. Not sure what Wilner's beef is, but it extends decades. He was beat writer for SJ Mercury News then things happened but guess he's still in business. Funny thing is he was opposite Geracie, who memorably predicted UConn over Duke back in "99. Not sure who had the AP vote that year. I doubt that beatdown UConn administered to St Mary's softened his opinion of the team.
