Best Programs of the Modern Era

[RegisteredUconn]

Modern Era (1985 - present)
1985 is a clear line of demarcation in college basketball. That year the post-season tournament expanded to 64 teams eliminating an uneven jumble of rules and requirements across the years, and even within regions in the same year. From 1939 to 1984 the NCAA Tournament employed different standards: variable field sizes; team byes; geographic constraints; unbalanced regions; conference limitations (one team per); even competition from the NIT. However, from 1985 onward, all champions have faced the same 6-game gauntlet.

Scoring
Comparing teams can be simple or it can be complicated. For this analysis, I've used a unit of measure as simple as it is powerful: 1 point for each game a team plays. This measurement is very similar to the method used by the NCAA to distribute tournament cash among the conferences. The only exception to the one point per game played is the awarding of a 7th point to the champion to distinguish it from the runner-up (both teams played 6 games). Per year, teams are awarded points as shown below.
0 points - team didn't make the tournament
1 point - team eliminated in the first round
2 points - team eliminated in the second round
3 points - team eliminated in the Sweet Sixteen
4 points - team eliminated in the Elite Eight
5 points - team eliminated in the Final Four
6 points - team lost the championship game
7 points - team won championship

Elite Programs
The prospects: Below are the top 30 programs (point totals in parentheses) of the past 30 years. Asterisks represent the number of national championships each has won since 1985.
1. ****Duke (111)
2. **Kansas (102)
2. **North Carolina (102)
4. ***Kentucky (95)
5. *Arizona (77)
6. ****Connecticut (73)
6. **Michigan State (73)
6. *Syracuse (73)
9. **Louisville (68)
10. *UCLA (65)
11. **Florida (61)
12. *Indiana (56)
13. *Michigan (53)
14. Georgetown (52)
14. Texas (52)
16. Oklahoma (51)
17. Illinois (50)
18. Ohio State (48)
19. Purdue (47)
20. *Maryland (46)
20. Temple (46)
22. *Arkansas (45)
22. Memphis (45)
24. *Villanova (44)
25. Wisconsin (43)
26. Xavier (42)
27. Cincinnati (41)
28. Oklahoma State (39)
28. *UNLV (39)
30. Georgia Tech (37)
30. Pittsburgh (37)

This group of 30 includes each of the 17 different champions of the Modern Era. To further whittle down the contenders, I focused on those programs who've won multiple championships. The lowest scoring team winning multiple championships was Florida, ranked 11th, with 61 points. Just below Florida, in 12th place, with 56 points, was Indiana, a perennial favorite for inclusion in various best programs lists. Including the Hoosiers yielded a field of an even dozen.

These 12 teams constitute my list of the Elite Programs of the Modern Era. Each has won at least one championship. Collectively, they have garnered 5 of every 6 invitations available to them and dominated the NCAA Tournament. They've earned nearly half of all Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight berths, claimed 60% of the Final Four slots, accounted for two out of every three champions game teams, and won 25 of the 30 championships. And their domination has been growing stronger. Given more than 300 D1 teams, the numbers compiled by this group are staggering:
294 invitations (82% of a possible 360 opportunities had every team appeared every year).
177 Sweet Sixteens (49% of the 360 berths available to them).
112 Elite Eights (47% of 240).
70 Final Fours (58% of 120).
41 Finalists (68% of 60 teams).
25 Champions (83% of the 30).

The table below details the year by year scoring for each of the Elite Programs.
Year Duke Kan UNC Ky Ariz UConn MichSt Syr Lville UCLA Fla Ind Total
2014 1 2 2 6 4 7 4 2 3 3 5 0 39
2013 4 3 2 0 3 0 3 5 7 1 4 3 35
2012 1 6 4 7 0 1 3 4 5 0 4 3 38
2011 3 4 4 5 4 7 1 2 1 2 4 0 37
2010 7 2 0 4 0 0 5 3 1 0 1 0 23
2009 3 3 7 0 3 5 6 3 4 2 0 0 36
2008 2 7 5 1 1 1 3 0 4 5 0 1 30
2007 1 4 4 2 1 0 2 0 2 5 7 2 30
2006 3 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 0 6 7 2 31
2005 3 1 7 4 4 2 5 1 5 1 2 0 35
2004 5 4 2 2 1 7 1 3 1 0 1 0 27
2003 3 6 0 4 4 3 4 7 2 0 2 2 37
2002 3 5 0 3 3 4 1 0 0 3 1 6 29
2001 7 3 2 3 6 0 5 2 0 3 2 1 34
2000 3 2 5 2 2 2 7 3 1 3 6 1 37
1999 6 2 1 4 1 7 5 1 1 1 3 2 34
1998 4 2 5 7 4 4 3 3 0 3 0 2 37
1997 2 3 5 6 7 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 32
1996 1 4 2 7 3 3 0 6 3 1 1 0 31
1995 0 3 5 4 1 4 1 2 1 7 1 1 30
1994 6 3 2 2 5 3 2 3 3 1 5 3 38
1993 2 5 7 5 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 4 29
1992 7 2 3 4 1 2 2 2 2 4 0 5 34
1991 7 6 5 0 3 3 2 1 0 1 0 3 31
1990 6 2 3 0 2 4 3 3 2 3 0 1 29
1989 5 0 3 0 3 0 0 4 3 2 1 3 24
1988 5 7 4 3 5 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 32
1987 3 3 4 1 1 0 0 6 0 2 3 7 30
1986 6 5 3 4 1 0 3 2 7 0 0 1 32
1985 2 2 4 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 15
Total 111 102 102 95 77 73 73 73 68 65 61 56 956
Tourns 29 29 27 25 28 19 24 25 23 23 19 23 294
Avg 3.83 3.52 3.78 3.8 2.75 3.84 3.04 2.92 2.96 2.83 3.21 2.43 3.25
Corr -.30 .02 -.14 .14 .01 .33 .44 -.03 .18 .11 .45 -.29 .42
Last three lines of the table are:
Tourns = number of tournament appearances
Avg = average number of wins per appearance, Total / Tourns
Corr = the correlation coefficient, a measure of the relationship between points and years

Scoring consists of making the field in the first place (for which 1 point is awarded) and then performing well once there. There is an obvious relationship between points and number of appearances. You can't accumulate points if you aren't in the tournament. In fact, the top five scoring programs are also the top five programs in appearances. However, Arizona, which made the field 28 times in 30 years, significantly trails Kentucky (3 fewer appearances) because of 10 first round losses, the most of any team.

At the other end of the spectrum, UConn has missed the tournament entirely 11 times, tied with Florida for the fewest appearances. However, in years UConn does make the field, they perform better than any other school averaging 3.84 points per appearance (2nd line from bottom in table). UConn, Michigan State, and Syracuse are tied for sixth place with 73 points each. Had the Huskies made the tournament 5 more times, like Michigan State, they would have earned 78 points landing them in 5th place overall. Had they reached the tournament as many times as Syracuse AND maintained their per year performance (unlikely I know, but it's UConn, tell that to the guys in 2011 and 2014), they would have passed Kentucky for 4th place.

Trends
Correlation (the last row of the table) is a measure or the strength of a relationship, in this case, the relationship between points and years. Values can range from -1 to +1. A positive number means a team has been scoring more points in recent years than they did in earlier years. That is, they are getting better over time. Negative numbers mean the opposite. Florida, Michigan State, and UConn show the strongest improvement while Duke and Indiana have been in decline.

The downward trend of Duke and Indiana have has been consistent over the course of the last 30 years. While ranked #1 overall, Duke scored in the bottom half of the elite group over the last decade. Indiana is rapidly losing relevance in "Best Programs" discussions. They had the lowest initial ranking of the elite 12 and are trending lower. In the past decade, the Hoosiers have missed the tournament entirely 5 times, were eliminated the first weekend 3 of the 5 times they appeared, and haven't made it past the Sweet Sixteen since 2002.

North Carolina and Syracuse are the only other elite programs to have shown an overall downward trend across the modern era. North Carolina did rebound strongly in the third decade. Syracuse experienced a mild uptick in the second decade before sliding.

Even with one-third of the elite programs trending lower over the 30 years, the elite group as a whole have a positive correlation of +.42. As dominating as these 12 programs have been in the modern era, they are getting even stronger.

Florida (+.45), Michigan State (+.44), and UConn (+.33) have shown strong positive movement overall. Florida and Michigan State's improvement has been consistent over all three decades while UConn regressed in the most recent decade.

Conclusions
Duke is at risk of losing its claim as "Best Program." The Blue Devils were clearly the best program of the first decade of the modern era, outscoring second best North Carolina 49 points to 38. In the second decade, they tied with UConn and Kansas at 34 points, trailing Kentucky who had 42. By the third decade, their 28 points put them in 7th place behind North Carolina (37), Florida (34), Kansas (33), Michigan State (33), Louisville (32), and Kentucky (31). Of Duke's 111 Modern Era points, 44% were scored between 1985 and 1994, 31% between 1995 and 2004, and just 25% between 2005 and 2014.

With the additions of Syracuse and Louisville, the ACC now counts one-third of the elite programs as members. The SEC (Kentucky and Florida), PAC (Arizona and UCLA), and Big Ten (Michigan State and Indiana) have two teams each, while the Big 12 (Kansas) and American (UConn) each have a single entry. While the ACC is currently pulling away, they also face what is probably the most daunting challenge: replacing the four oldest coaches (Boeheim, 69, Krzyzewski, 67, Williams, 63, and Pitino, 61). The Big Ten needs to seriously consider adding one or more of the other elites if they want to keep up.

UConn is the least consistent program of the 12. In the last 5 years alone, they've won two championships and failed to make the tournament at all two times. This inconsistency has cost them dearly as, in years where they've made the tournament, they've exhibited the strongest performance. UConn must focus on more consistently making the tournament. Just making the tournament the year they were suspended would have been enough to differentiate them from Michigan State and Syracuse and place themselves in the top half of the elite programs.

Finally, there are no strong contenders to join this current group of elite programs. Each of the five modern era national champions not included in the elite group has won only once, none have won in the last decade, four of the five were champs more than 20 years ago, and all have a negative correlation between points and years. They are trending lower, not higher. Of the rest of the top 30, only Wisconsin (+.71) and Ohio State (+.30), show decent improvement, neither has won a championship, and both are years away from scoring enough total points to be elevated to elite status. Indiana should probably be dropped from this list.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I apologize for the poor appearance of my table. Despite my best efforts and use of a fixed width font, what I type and what gets posted are two different things.

 

[Pudge]

How can a LOSS in the NC be worth 6 & the NC be worth 7?

That's just not the way of the world. There needs to be a clearer distinguishing feature. You can run a regression analysis ... and still get DUKE if you want.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

How can a LOSS in the NC be worth 6 & the NC be worth 7?

That's just not the way of the world. There needs to be a clearer distinguishing feature. You can run a regression analysis ... and still get DUKE if you want.

Because the criteria is # of games played. Lose in the NC, you've played 6 games, you get 6 points. Win the NC, you've played 6 games, you get 6 points plus a bonus point to differentiate the winner from the loser. This is the same criteria the NCAA uses to distribute tournament money except that, for reasons unknown to me, they halt the scoring at the Final Four. Teams don't get any extra credit for playing in the championship game.

Awarding a 6th and 7th point is simply a logical extension of the NCAA criteria. The 7th point is for an "implied" game if you will. The only reason the champion didn't play a 7th game is because competition concluded.

 

[donyell34]

Just numbers, heck this isn't a tax return. Only number that matters is 4. Where does that place us 4th or 5th all-time. In the end that's , that.

 

[CallMeBruce]

I suppose I see what they're trying to do, but any system that rewards a first round win over Southwest North Dakota State Tech the same as a win in the title game is going to give you some pretty stupid results, for example that Syracuse and UConn have been equally successful over the last 30 years.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I suppose I see what they're trying to do, but any system that rewards a first round win over Southwest North Dakota State Tech the same as a win in the title game is going to give you some pretty stupid results, for example that Syracuse and UConn have been equally successful over the last 30 years.

To me, it doesn't reward the first round win or the championship win specifically, it's simply a way to calculate performance. The champion's performance is worth seven times as much as the performance of the team eliminated in the first round. What you want would be something like redefining a scoring title by considering, somehow, things like shot difficulty, game pressure, and such. Surely a game winner should be worth more than a shot at the 5 min. mark of the first half.

 

[upstater]

Besides not giving enough points for winning more important games, another problem any analysis won't account for is seeding bias. Some teams get easier early round games.

 

[RichZ]

Awarding a 6th and 7th point is simply a logical extension of the NCAA criteria.

So what you're saying is that something the NCAA came up with is the most logical solution? Sorry, but that logic leads us down a road where the APR ( and UConn's retroactive punishment) make sense, using the images of your unpaid labor for profit in perpetuity is right, and flickin' Emmert is a genius.

Toss the NCAA scoring completely, and double the points awarded for each round.
1,2,4,8,16,32. That at least begins to make sense.

 

[donyell34]

It is flawed. To many ways to manipulate the he numbers. IMO 4 is the prettiest number . These numbers equate us with the oranges , when 4- 1 should separate us. Championships are what matters. Syr. Always manipulate's their numbers and accomplishments to put themselves ahead of us. 4-1 shuts them down.

 

[Kitaman]

Threads like this make me feel stupid, lazy or simply to old to fully analyze. I thank those posters doing the yeoman's work.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

So what you're saying is that something the NCAA came up with is the most logical solution? Sorry, but that logic leads us down a road where the APR ( and UConn's retroactive punishment) make sense, using the images of your unpaid labor for profit in perpetuity is right, and flickin' Emmert is a genius.

Toss the NCAA scoring completely, and double the points awarded for each round.
1,2,4,8,16,32. That at least begins to make sense.

What I'm saying is the NCAA uses this method to distribute money and there is a consensus by the member institutions that it is a reasonably fair way of doing that. Anything people come up with will have flaws, but money is MONEY. Most people will raise a stink if they think they're not getting a "fair" share. This method has stood a test of time. What's more, I'll wager actual money it's doing a pretty fair job.

 

[Rocktheworld]

The scoring is ridiculous. The points need to scale up exponentially: 1 point for getting in, 2 for getting to 32, 4 for SS, 8 for EE, 16 for FF, 25 for NC. The scoring makes it like winning the NC once you're there is as easy as getting in to the tournament

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The scoring is ridiculous. The points need to scale up exponentially: 1 point for getting in, 2 for getting to 32, 4 for SS, 8 for EE, 16 for FF, 20 for NC. The scoring makes it like winning the NC once you're there is as easy as winning in the first round.

So basically the winner gets 127 points and the runner-up gets 63? A one point win in the championship based on the other team scoring a goal for you is worth twice as much as what the other team accomplished?

 

[noeynox]

Any analysis that has us tied with SU had to be written by one of their fans. 4>1.

 

[Dooley]

Who conducted this study/scoring? 7 points is clearly not enough for winning a championship. Winning it all is all that matters and weighing a championship with 7 points seems low.

 

[upstater]

So basically the winner gets 127 points and the runner-up gets 63? A one point win in the championship based on the other team scoring a goal for you is worth twice as much as what the other team accomplished?

Yes, I would say winning the championship should be valued 2x as losing it.

It gets exponentially harder to reach that point. It is simply much harder to win in the F4 than it is to win in the opening rounds against Mercer. Ummm......

 

[CallMeBruce]

So basically the winner gets 127 points and the runner-up gets 63? A one point win in the championship based on the other team scoring a goal for you is worth twice as much as what the other team accomplished?

That may be the case, but it's not like it's only speculation that later round games are harder than earlier round games. That's how single-elimination tournaments work. The further you go, the harder the next win is, and being the team that wins every time should be worth more than one extra point.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

I think someone already mentioned this but all I care about are teh 4 asterisks

 

[HuskyHawk]

How can a LOSS in the NC be worth 6 & the NC be worth 7?

That's just not the way of the world. There needs to be a clearer distinguishing feature. You can run a regression analysis ... and still get DUKE if you want.

I think it makes perfect sense. Winning a championship isn't that much better than getting to the championship game.

Would you rather be a fan of a team with one title and 6 final fours or 2 titles and two final fours? I'd prefer the six final fours.

 

[Dooley]

Plus I would say that some games are more difficult than others. What I mean is that sometimes you have to play UNC in Greensboro, UCLA in CA, SDSU in CA, George Mason in DC (although there is no excuse for that one still), Texas in Texas, UCONN in MSG, etc. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But it's much more difficult to win a game when 80% or more of the crowd is clearly rooting for your opponent because you're playing them in "their turf".

 

[Rocktheworld]

So basically the winner gets 127 points and the runner-up gets 63? A one point win in the championship based on the other team scoring a goal for you is worth twice as much as what the other team accomplished?

Okay so give them consolation points or something. You're missing my general point though.

 

[Rocktheworld]

I think it makes perfect sense. Winning a championship isn't that much better than getting to the championship game.

Would you rather be a fan of a team with one title and 6 final fours or 2 titles and two final fours? I'd prefer the six final fours.

Of course you do, you went to KU

But do you REALLY think 4 championships and 5 FFs is on the same level as 1 championship and 4 FFs? Because Cuse is tied with us in this scoring, and AZ is ahead of us.

 

[noeynox]

I think it makes perfect sense. Winning a championship isn't that much better than getting to the championship game.

Would you rather be a fan of a team with one title and 6 final fours or 2 titles and two final fours? I'd prefer the six final fours.

2>1. Would you rather be a fan of the buffalo bills or the seatle seahawks? Of course being fan doesn't work that way, but we have 5 final fours and four titles. I would take that over 10 final fours and 2 titltes. Reminds me of a comedian who once talked about olympians winning silver medals. He said a silver medal serves as constant reminder, that of all of the losers, YOU were the best LOSER.

 

[Final4 42]

This analysis is about consistency making the tournament and hardly anything about performance. You need to award more points for each round (like NCAA pools work) to show the success of the programs.

Would anyone trade the 2014 and 2011 championship wins for NCAA berths in 2013 and 2010 with 2 meaningless wins/points in this silly thing?